Existuje Bůh?

Díky děvečce vědy můžeme i marnit čas na těcht stránkách,díky děvečce církve můžeme život neužitečné kazatele a donekonečna restauraovat často historicky nehodnotné,ničím nevýznamné typově stejné stavby.
Díky děvečce kapitalismu nás mohou pást jako ovce bez šance z toho někdy vyklouznout.
Naštěstí tu je ještě osobní víra,která tohle všechno umožňuje přestát a z blbostí se vyzout.

Bůh je pro všechny společný,nebo není?!Nám v tom nejasno.Ale věda ta je společná pro všechny,takže děvečka nevěsta ďáblva je věda.

Mě to sem holt taky táhne.Přestižní téma Existuje Bůh,žádného buzika nenechá chladným.

Koukám, že ta chemizovaná strava dělá s lidma divy. Už ani neví co píšou a čí jsou. To se máme ještě na co těšit.

1
4/19/2012
Darwin Skeptics
A
Select
List
of
Science
Academics,
Scientists,
and
Scholars
Who are Skeptical of Darwinism
Compiled by Jerry Bergman PhD.
It is commonly claimed that no scientist rejects macroevolution or Darwinism (by which is meant
evolutionary naturalism, or the view that
variation caused by mutations plus natural selection
accounts for
all life forms
). For example, Dr. Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College of London, wrote
that “no scientist denies the central t
ruth of
The Origin
, the idea of descent with modification... plants,
animals and everything else descended from a common ancestor” (Jones, 2000, pp. xvii, xxiii). Other
writers avoid the words “all” or “no scientist” and claim instead that “almost no scie
ntist” rejects
Darwinism as defined above. In an article refuting “wiccan creationism,” the author claimed that
evolutionary theory has been confirmed to such a high degree and has such great explanatory
power that it is the central organizing principle
of the biological sciences today. Modern biology
is basically unthinkable outside of the context of evolution and that is why it is accepted without
reservations by pretty much every working scientists [sic] in the life sciences. It also isn’t really
qu
estioned in the other natural sciences, either, like physics or chemistry.
The author then makes the following absolutist statement:
Evolution is taken as a fact
—
and while there might be disagreements about some of the details of
how evolution proceeds
,
there are no disagreements about the idea that it does occur and that it is
the explanation for the diversity of life on our planet
. Ashtaroth’s claim is exactly the opposite of
the truth, which is that “almost no scientist puts any stock in any other a
ttempted explanation for
the diversity of life
—
especially creationism” (
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/063194.htm
accessed
May 28, 2004, p. 1).
This view is not an isolated example. The late Ernst
Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Zoology at Harvard University, is “one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of our time” (Ferris,
2001, p. 326). Mayr declared that “no educated person any longer questions the validity of the so
-
called
theor
y of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact” (Mayr, 2001, p. 141). He has been claiming
this for over 40 years
—
in 1967 he wrote that “evolution is accepted by every scientist” and for this reason
it is no longer necessary to “enumerate painstaki
ngly the proofs for evolution” (Mayr, 1967, p. v). In 1971,
Mayr claimed that he did “not know of a single well
-
informed person who questions the factuality of
evolution” (Mayr, 1971, p. 49). Not a single person! Mayr defines evolution, which he calls “D
arwinism,”
as the rejection of
all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (Mayr
2001, p. 138).
Mayr adds that “eliminating God from science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all
natural phenomena” (Mayr 2001, p. 138). Furthermore, Mayr concludes, the “truly outstanding
achievement” of Darwinism is that his theory
“makes unnecessary the invocation of ‘final causes’
—
that is,
any teleological forces” (Mayr 2001, p. 136). This claim is common. Evolutionary biologist of Brandt
University Dr Gary Huxley wrote “Evolution is a fact and no educated scientist doubts it” (quo
ted in
McDorman, 2011, p. 1).
Yet, in spite of these claims, I was able to with little difficulty assemble a list of almost 3,000
scientists and professors who reject
Darwinism as defined as
variation caused by mutations plus natural
selection ultimately a
ccounts for all life forms
, most of whom hold a Ph.D. degree in some field of science.
This is but a small percentage of the estimated 113,000 Darwin Skeptic scientists and academics in the
2
United States alone, accordingly to a Harvard researcher (Gross a
nd Simmons, 2006). Yet, Mayr admitted
evolution is an historical,
not
an empirical science:
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science
—
the
evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already
taken place. Laws and
experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead
one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular
scenario that led to the events on
e is trying to explain (2001, p. 135).
Given his acknowledgement of this fact, it is all the more surprising that Mayr would be so
dogmatic as to insist upon the unquestionable, unequivocal validity of Darwinism. Joseph McInerney, the
director of
Biolog
ical Sciences Curriculum Study,
which publishes the textbook
Biological Science: An
Ecological Approach
, wrote that
creationists maintain that ‘scientists disagree about evolution.’ That is a deliberate
misrepresentation of biology. In fact,
all
scien
tists accept the reality of evolution” (quoted in Hill,
1996, pp. 5,7, emphasis added).
This erroneous view has been widely promoted and accepted at least since 1922 when Professor
George Duncan claimed that
Evolution is well
-
nigh universally accepted
by all scientific men as the best explanation for the
facts of life. The American Association for the Advance of Science with over 1400 members,
comprising most of the scientific men of the United States and Canada, affirmed, in December,
1922, without a
dissenting vote, the following: “No scientific generalization is more strongly
supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of evolution. The evidences for the
evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of note in the world.” ..
.H.F. Osborn of
Columbia University writes: “Evolution has long since passed out of the domain of speculation, of
hypothesis, and even of theory. It is a law of living nature as firmly and incontrovertibly
established as the law of gravitation in respect
to the celestial spheres” (Duncan, 1931, pp. 31
-
32).
Others acknowledge that some Darwin Skeptic scientists exist, but conclude that the number is
very small. For example, Samuel Kounaves argues evolutionary naturalists include “99.9999 percent of the
scientific community” (Kounaves 2005, p. 1).
The sources for the members of this list include primarily persons of my acquaintance, from their
involvement in creationist or Darwin Doubter organizations, or books that they have written. The list is
very
incomplete, and I apologize for the many omissions. I estimate that, if I had the time and resources, I
could easily complete a list of over 10,000 names. I am also a member of three discussion groups
involving over to 400 creationists and Intelligent De
sign (ID) advocates, many of whom are not included in
this list because of their justifiable concern that revealing their sympathies in this area could adversely
impact their careers. I did not add names unless the person was out
-
of
-
the
-
closet or gave his
or her
permission.
On my public list, I have close to 3,000 names, including about a dozen Nobel Prize winners but,
unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college
professors, did not want their na
me listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their
careers. Many of those who did not want their names on this list are young academics without tenure, or
academics who are concerned that “outing” them could seriously damage thei
r career. This is a valid
concern. For this reason I have a private list with well over a 1,000 names.
Many on this list are secure tenured professors, teach at Christian Universities that protect their
academic freedom to criticize Darwinism, or are in
industry, or in a medical field where less antagonism
exists when it comes to questioning Darwin. Some on this list are now involved full time in speaking and
writing on origins, and no longer depend on secular employment to put bread on the family table.
Many are
also retired, thus no longer face retaliation for their doubts about Darwin. Some consented to include their
names only if their current employment was not listed. This is an ongoing project and I greatly appreciate
the contributions of the many
persons who have helped me in this now six year long effort. I contacted
3
most of those on this list but, if they have published books or articles that clearly express doubts about
Darwinism, or were active in various creation or ID movements, I did not alw
ays contact them.
Most of the following worldwide scientists and educators (by the time this list was published some
may be deceased) all reject “Darwinism” according to the following definition: The belief that evolution
and common decent can account for
the existence of all life. A few accept common decent but reject the
Darwinisn mechanism. Most all persons on this list are also skeptical of the ability of random mutation and
natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Furthermore, all stres
sed that careful examination of
the evidence for Darwinism should be encouraged. This list proves Mayr’s claim that “no educated person
any longer questions the validity” of Darwinism, as Mayr defines it, to be not only false, but grossly
irresponsible.
Furthermore, many of these scientists and academics have published in the scientific
literature, some extensively. In one survey, Elliott (1990) concluded
that
approximately half of the current
Creation Res

1
4/19/2012
Darwin Skeptics
A
Select
List
of
Science
Academics,
Scientists,
and
Scholars
Who are Skeptical of Darwinism
Compiled by Jerry Bergman PhD.
It is commonly claimed that no scientist rejects macroevolution or Darwinism (by which is meant
evolutionary naturalism, or the view that
variation caused by mutations plus natural selection
accounts for
all life forms
). For example, Dr. Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College of London, wrote
that “no scientist denies the central t
ruth of
The Origin
, the idea of descent with modification... plants,
animals and everything else descended from a common ancestor” (Jones, 2000, pp. xvii, xxiii). Other
writers avoid the words “all” or “no scientist” and claim instead that “almost no scie
ntist” rejects
Darwinism as defined above. In an article refuting “wiccan creationism,” the author claimed that
evolutionary theory has been confirmed to such a high degree and has such great explanatory
power that it is the central organizing principle
of the biological sciences today. Modern biology
is basically unthinkable outside of the context of evolution and that is why it is accepted without
reservations by pretty much every working scientists [sic] in the life sciences. It also isn’t really
qu
estioned in the other natural sciences, either, like physics or chemistry.
The author then makes the following absolutist statement:
Evolution is taken as a fact
—
and while there might be disagreements about some of the details of
how evolution proceeds
,
there are no disagreements about the idea that it does occur and that it is
the explanation for the diversity of life on our planet
. Ashtaroth’s claim is exactly the opposite of
the truth, which is that “almost no scientist puts any stock in any other a
ttempted explanation for
the diversity of life
—
especially creationism” (
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/063194.htm
accessed
May 28, 2004, p. 1).
This view is not an isolated example. The late Ernst
Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Zoology at Harvard University, is “one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of our time” (Ferris,
2001, p. 326). Mayr declared that “no educated person any longer questions the validity of the so
-
called
theor
y of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact” (Mayr, 2001, p. 141). He has been claiming
this for over 40 years
—
in 1967 he wrote that “evolution is accepted by every scientist” and for this reason
it is no longer necessary to “enumerate painstaki
ngly the proofs for evolution” (Mayr, 1967, p. v). In 1971,
Mayr claimed that he did “not know of a single well
-
informed person who questions the factuality of
evolution” (Mayr, 1971, p. 49). Not a single person! Mayr defines evolution, which he calls “D
arwinism,”
as the rejection of
all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (Mayr
2001, p. 138).
Mayr adds that “eliminating God from science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all
natural phenomena” (Mayr 2001, p. 138). Furthermore, Mayr concludes, the “truly outstanding
achievement” of Darwinism is that his theory
“makes unnecessary the invocation of ‘final causes’
—
that is,
any teleological forces” (Mayr 2001, p. 136). This claim is common. Evolutionary biologist of Brandt
University Dr Gary Huxley wrote “Evolution is a fact and no educated scientist doubts it” (quo
ted in
McDorman, 2011, p. 1).
Yet, in spite of these claims, I was able to with little difficulty assemble a list of almost 3,000
scientists and professors who reject
Darwinism as defined as
variation caused by mutations plus natural
selection ultimately a
ccounts for all life forms
, most of whom hold a Ph.D. degree in some field of science.
This is but a small percentage of the estimated 113,000 Darwin Skeptic scientists and academics in the
2
United States alone, accordingly to a Harvard researcher (Gross a
nd Simmons, 2006). Yet, Mayr admitted
evolution is an historical,
not
an empirical science:
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science
—
the
evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already
taken place. Laws and
experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead
one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular
scenario that led to the events on
e is trying to explain (2001, p. 135).
Given his acknowledgement of this fact, it is all the more surprising that Mayr would be so
dogmatic as to insist upon the unquestionable, unequivocal validity of Darwinism. Joseph McInerney, the
director of
Biolog
ical Sciences Curriculum Study,
which publishes the textbook
Biological Science: An
Ecological Approach
, wrote that
creationists maintain that ‘scientists disagree about evolution.’ That is a deliberate
misrepresentation of biology. In fact,
all
scien
tists accept the reality of evolution” (quoted in Hill,
1996, pp. 5,7, emphasis added).
This erroneous view has been widely promoted and accepted at least since 1922 when Professor
George Duncan claimed that
Evolution is well
-
nigh universally accepted
by all scientific men as the best explanation for the
facts of life. The American Association for the Advance of Science with over 1400 members,
comprising most of the scientific men of the United States and Canada, affirmed, in December,
1922, without a
dissenting vote, the following: “No scientific generalization is more strongly
supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of evolution. The evidences for the
evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of note in the world.” ..
.H.F. Osborn of
Columbia University writes: “Evolution has long since passed out of the domain of speculation, of
hypothesis, and even of theory. It is a law of living nature as firmly and incontrovertibly
established as the law of gravitation in respect
to the celestial spheres” (Duncan, 1931, pp. 31
-
32).
Others acknowledge that some Darwin Skeptic scientists exist, but conclude that the number is
very small. For example, Samuel Kounaves argues evolutionary naturalists include “99.9999 percent of the
scientific community” (Kounaves 2005, p. 1).
The sources for the members of this list include primarily persons of my acquaintance, from their
involvement in creationist or Darwin Doubter organizations, or books that they have written. The list is
very
incomplete, and I apologize for the many omissions. I estimate that, if I had the time and resources, I
could easily complete a list of over 10,000 names. I am also a member of three discussion groups
involving over to 400 creationists and Intelligent De
sign (ID) advocates, many of whom are not included in
this list because of their justifiable concern that revealing their sympathies in this area could adversely
impact their careers. I did not add names unless the person was out
-
of
-
the
-
closet or gave his
or her
permission.
On my public list, I have close to 3,000 names, including about a dozen Nobel Prize winners but,
unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college
professors, did not want their na
me listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their
careers. Many of those who did not want their names on this list are young academics without tenure, or
academics who are concerned that “outing” them could seriously damage thei
r career. This is a valid
concern. For this reason I have a private list with well over a 1,000 names.
Many on this list are secure tenured professors, teach at Christian Universities that protect their
academic freedom to criticize Darwinism, or are in
industry, or in a medical field where less antagonism
exists when it comes to questioning Darwin. Some on this list are now involved full time in speaking and
writing on origins, and no longer depend on secular employment to put bread on the family table.
Many are
also retired, thus no longer face retaliation for their doubts about Darwin. Some consented to include their
names only if their current employment was not listed. This is an ongoing project and I greatly appreciate
the contributions of the many
persons who have helped me in this now six year long effort. I contacted

Abych se vyhnul nepříjemnost s štikou sumcem a porybným pytláků ,řádící v těchto vídách neupřímným psaním z kterého podezírají věecny okolo,anož by počítali ,že někdo může mít vícero osobností,tak sem ten otčenáš nedám,kdo chce si ho najde.

Před spaním se hlavně třeba umýt.
A před spaním se hodí modlitba.
Já nevím o co se snažíš ,mě od víry neodradíš.
Zlé síly v sobě zapudím k Bohu se pomodlím.

Díky ti Bože za jídlo...To se chystáš sem tuhle modlitbu nakopírovat dycky v noci před nájezdem na ledničku, aby sis vyčistil svědomí? Tak se pomodli zas před sraním a na doktorku to už ani nedávej. Dík

.

.

Diskutovat neumíš?

Diskutovat neumíš?

.

Díky ti Bože za jídlo které jíme.
Díky ti Bože,že je svět tak sladký.
Díky ti Bože za ptactvo,které zpívá.
Díky ti Bože za všechno.

Zkusme se vzájemně nenapadat, ať jsme věřící v Boha a nebo ateisti věřící v evoluci. Zkusme předkládat svoje podklady pro naši víru v evoluci, nebo v Boha.
Biblické vysvětlení vesmíru i naší planety Země. Je to popsáno v "1. Mojžíšově"
Nejdřív se pokusím popsat jak tomu rozumím já a pak napíši jak je to popsáno v Bibli. Bude to možná trochu chaotické. Můžete se ptát co vám nebude jasné.

Bůh udělal vesmír a zemi.
"1?Na počátku Bůh stvořil nebesa a zemi."

Země byla pokryta vodou a byla jakoby beztvará. Všude v celém vesmíru byla tma. Boží činná síla (energie) se pohybovala celým vesmírem.

"2?A země se prokázala být beztvará a pustá a na povrchu vodní hlubiny byla tma; a Boží činná síla se pohybovala sem a tam nad povrchem vod."

Bůh přistoupil k tomu, aby udělal osvětlení vesmíru i země.

"3?A Bůh přistoupil k tomu, aby řekl: „Ať nastane světlo.“ Pak nastalo světlo. 4?Potom Bůh viděl, že světlo je dobré, a Bůh oddělil světlo od tmy. 5?A Bůh začal nazývat světlo Dnem, ale tmu nazval Nocí. A nastal večer a nastalo ráno, první den."

Popisuje se to jako jeden den, ale u Boha neexistuje čas. Takže jeden den může znamenat x let, jak je to popsáno u 2.Petra 3:8
8?Ať však neuniká vaší pozornosti jedna skutečnost, milovaní, že jeden den je u Jehovy jako tisíc let a tisíc let jako jeden den

Příště se pokusím popsat další dny (roky), tvoření země a vesmíru.

Schválně se znovu...No jo, křestané si nějak vydedukovakli, že když Bůh, tak Biblický. Ale oni se tak dokážou hádat a urážet mezi sebou, že jsou v tomto vlastně jedineční

Schválně se znovu podívejte na nadpis. Tahle diskuse se jmenuje "Existuje Bůh?" Nikoli "Bůh existuje a je to ten křesťanský, takže sem pojďme házet výňatky z bible a další slátaniny původem ze středověku!"

Bože, ty jsi zdroj dokonalého pokoje. Prosíme tě za mír pro celý svět, pro všechny národy a pro celé lidstvo. Dej nám sílu překonávat zlo dobrem, odpouštět a šířit pokoj, abychom se směli nazývat Tvými dětmi a svět aby se proměnil ve Tvé království míru a pokoje. Amen

Proto tě Bůh miluje , že Tě navštěvuje !

Ano to potom všichni krpatí , nedonošení ,poznamenaní , nemocní , týraní a především ženatí borci musí být zajisté v sedmém nebi ! :-)