مفاجأة

[الحمد لله]

http://www.livescience.com/45205-dat...y-nsf-bts.html

[Skeptic]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة الحمد لله

http://www.livescience.com/45205-dat...y-nsf-bts.html

هل قرأت تعليق صاحب المقالة؟
المؤمن كاذب:

كما تري، قاموا بتزيف كلامة، وبالتالي قام بالرد علي مقالتة التي زيفوها....
كما تري المؤمن كاذب، ومخادع...
لا يوجد في بحث در برادلي أية شيئ يعارض نظرية داروين والأنتخاب ا لطبيعي...
البحث يعارض مقالة أخري لداروين عن التنافس بين الكائنات، التي تفترض التنافس يكون كبير بين نفس النوع، بدلا عن الأنواع البعيدة...ليس لها علاقة بنظرية الأنتخاب الطبيعي...
تحياتي

[الحمد لله]

http://www.goutpal.com/wp-content/up...-evolution.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...1/?tool=pubmed

http://www.pnas.org/content/93/16/8475.full.pdf

[Skeptic]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة الحمد لله

http://www.goutpal.com/wp-content/up...-evolution.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...1/?tool=pubmed

http://www.pnas.org/content/93/16/8475.full.pdf

هل قرأت ما تتحدث عنة؟
المؤمن ناقل لا يفهم...
فعلا المؤمن كائن غريب...
http://www.pnas.org/content/93/16/8475.full.pdf

The publication costs of
this article
were defrayed
in part
bypage
charge
payment.
This
article
must
therefore
be
hereby
marked
"advertisement"
in
accordance
with
18
U.S.C.
§1734
solely
to
indicate
this
fact.

المقالات أعلانات او غيرة.. ليس بها مقالة واحدة Peer Review... أفهم يامسلم، يخدعونك ويكذبون عليك...

[الحمد لله]

المهم انها تشكك و تهدم التطور و ستنهار هده النظرية قريبا كلية. العلم سيقضي عليها

[الحمد لله]

[الحمد لله]

سمك قرد موز فأر

نظريات الضحك و الاستهبال
مع دروين خليك ديما cool and relax

[Skeptic]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة الحمد لله

المهم انها تشكك و تهدم التطور و ستنهار هده النظرية قريبا كلية. العلم سيقضي عليها

الأنتخاب الطبيعي، نظرية علمية، لو وجد بحث علمي واحد Peer Review ينفي تلك العملية لأنتهت. لكن لا يوجد مثل هذا البحث.. في الحقيقة لا يوجد بحث علمي واحد ينفيها:
أحب أضافة مقالة في مجلة العلوم، 17 مايو 1985، وهي عبارة عن أحصاء للأبحاث التي قدمها مدعوا التصميم الذكي، او الخلق:
Evidence for Scientific Creationism?
creationism the benefit of the doubt, and reasoning
that perhaps many manuscripts on the scientific underpinning
of creationism never reach the printed page-for
whatever reason-Scott and Cole turned their attention to
submissions to journals. In a survey of 68 scientific,
technical, and educational journals, which received a total
of 135,000 submitted manuscripts over a 3-year period,
only 18 addressed scientific creationism (3). Of these 12
went to one journal on science education; a second science
education publication received one more. Three submissions
went to one anthropology journal, and two further
manuscripts were sent to an anthropology journal and a
biology journal. At the time of writing, all manuscripts had
been rejected by journal editors, with the exception of
three that were still under review at one of the education
journals. The American Zoologist, which has a very open
policy on submission of abstracts, received not a single
presentation on empirical evidence for scientific creationism
during the 3-year study period.
Part of the survey included reasons for rejection of
papers. According to reviewers' comments, papers on
scientific creationism suffered from several faults, including
the following: poor presentation ("ramblings . . . ";
"no coherent arguments . . . "; "high-school theme quality
. . . "; "tendentious essay not suitable for publication
anywhere"; "more like a long letter than a referenced
article") and failure to follow accepted scientific canons
("no systematic treatment . . . "; "does not define
terms... "; "flawed arguments... "; "failure to acknowledge
and use extensive literature on particular questions
. . . "). Scott and Cole note that "From the reviewers'
comments, it appears as if laymen rather than professional
scientists are submitting the few articles that have
surfaced during the last three years."
Scott and Cole ask: "why don't the professional scientists
among the creationists publish empirical, experimental,
or theoretical evidence for scientific creationism?" The
answer, they suggest, is to be Sound in a comparison of the
scholarship evident in creation science sources with that in
orthodox scientific journals. There is, they say, a difference
in the application of logic. For instance, creationists
view the issue as having only two alternatives: evolution or
the biblical literalist view of creation. Given this dichotomy,
"arguments against evolution are arguments for creation."
Another example is in the use of extrapolation,
often done selectively: "All scientists extrapolate to some
degree from observations to conclusions, but creationist
extrapolations regularly border on the extreme." One
claim in this respect is that the earth must be young
because, if erosion of landmasses observed today had
operated for billions of years, then all the continents would
long ago have been washed away, a suggestion that simultaneously
ignores a large segment of continental geology
and the simplest implications of plate tectonics.
Creationists often complain that the scientific establishment
conspires to prevent the publication of evidence for
creationism, a posture that does not impress Scott and
Cole: " . . . when only 18 articles are submitted to 68
journals in three years, and those articles are submitted
apparently by persons not skilled in established scientific
methodology and theory, it is inappropriate to invoke
censorship. To be published, one must first submit, and
scientific creationists are apparently not submitting manuscripts."


كما نري، بالرغم من نهيقهم ليل نهار عن التصميم الذكي في الأعلام، لم يقوموا بنشر بحث علمي واحد....

http://jbiol.com/
أكبر مجلة في الأحياء.. تخيل ماذا في شعارها:







كما تري، تضع شعار التطو ر علي غلافها...
انتم تنقلون من الأنجليين الأمريكان، الذين هم أكثر فئات المسيحية تخلفا...
الكاثولويك، يعترفوا بالتطور، ولكن انتم تنقلون من المتخلفين بسبب ان الأسلام اكثر الأديان البشرية تخلفأ لذلك ينقل المسلمين من أكثر الفئات تخلفا...
هل فهمت؟

[الحمد لله]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ord-study.html

[الحمد لله]

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stori.../140102_1.html