Why Senator Brownback Doesn't Understand Science

Basically, Brownback argues that all science must pass through the "lens" of his fundamentalist biblicism in order to be acceptable. This critique is right on the money. I worked at a small Bible college in Knoxville, TN - and I can say with utmost certainty that almost none of the faculty there understood science--its purpose, methods, and limitations--which led them to completely reject evolution. I now consider this kind of view, as Brownback presents, as a failure of education, intellect, and moral courage to face reality. We do not need men who do not even know the definitions of the words they are using to lead our country. We've had enough of that for the past six years.

A) Brownback has no chance. He's out of line with the mainstream of the US population.

B) It only shows that a certain segment of the population (i.e., the religious right) can't seem to work their minds around intellectual subtleties.

C) That I had to use Word's spellcheck to make sure I spelled "subtleties" correctly.

I sit back now to await the presence of Basque...

For me, "believing" in evolution is a funny way of phrasing the issue. Evolution, like gravity or sound waves, doesn't need us believing in it to exist. "Admitting" that evolution is scientifically sound and almost certainly correct in theory, if not in all the currently known details, is more accurate. But, like the Senator said, that isn't as good a soundbyte.

And really, the ironic thing is that about half of his essay was completely irrelevent to the issue of evolution per se. For example:

"The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose."

So far as I know, no evolutionary theory can dispute that we are all unique. In fact, they pretty much insist on it. And the essential dignity of mankind is not really in question, seeing as how there doesn't seem to be much of a fossil record for it.

However, of his entire essay, I think the most troubling portion of it for me was:

"Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science. "

The whole concept of Truth with a capital T is fuzzy enough--I personally don't think we'll ever know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING, which means that we will never know for sure what "Truth" is. Way more disturbing was the opinion that moral beliefs can actually have an impact on factual evidence--that just by believing it into being, the whole line of evidence of evolution just vanishes into the sands, disproved and wrong.

--Thoughtful and well put. Thank you.
M.L.

The irony of the theory of evolution is that those who don't understand it and don't "believe in" it are fossils.

If Brownback is typical of the calibre of person you have striving to hold the highest office in your country, then I am glad that I live on a different continent. He wouldn't be considered for any role more responsible than that of a burger flipper at a fast food joint in most European democracies.

Evolution is not something one "believes" in.

Evolution is something that one accepts as a working hypothesis that best fits the real world data. This idea that evolution has anything to do with 'faith' is a canard that scientifically illiterate fundies love to propagate, but which is about as baseless as the rest of their other mental mirages.

The sooner America kicks the fundies into touch and tells them into which orifice they can insert their Dark Ages mentality prior to igniting it, the better.

That people like Brownback, with education and wealth, cling to outmoded 'redneck' religion is disheartening. But we Americans have always had to put up with the cultural backwater of our national life.

It's curious that people will swear by DNA results for paternity or to execute a man, but they lack any fortitude when it comes to the science behind DNA, evolution. The universal processes seem so hard to grasp because it's so simple in form. God is a complicated advanced idea and breaks Okham's Razor's law of simplicity. If everything comes from god, then, god should be the simplist idea in space.

Brian:

More troubling is the fact that these fossils now have their fingers on the atomic trigger, and their foreign policy is shaped by a fundamentalistic reading of the Book of Revelation.

Brian:

More troubling is the fact that these fossils now have their fingers on the atomic trigger, and their foreign policy is shaped by a fundamentalistic reading of the Book of Revelation.

Evolution is the best 'theory' humanity or even Nature has to offer to explain why things are as we see them today. The (only) as it seems alternative is creation(intelligent (sic.)) by some supernatural being. If we can 'prove' such a being *supernatural* can not exist we are left with Evolution.

I state this,

We do not need to disprove the existence of supernatural beings, if something is supernatural it cannot have an influence over our Universe, if it is contained in it, it was 'born' and has Evolved just as the rest of the Universe with it.

To All believers(or whoever considers him self as such) as an Atheist I do not need to disprove the existence of gods I only need to provide better Evidence of their non existence than you believers can provide to the contrary. There for I do not feel obliged to prove non-existence I only need to have "convincing"(as in having the deepest available knowledge) prof of it.

All man made churches will fall only the 'god's' churches will stand. I haven't seen one human building defy the laws of Nature so far.

Brownback may be playing a little more subtle game here than people give him credit for. His use of the word "materialistic" is interesting. Science is materialistic in the sense that it limits itself to the study of matter. In its more popular use, materialistic implies a (sinful?) love with wealth and superficial luxuries. Brownback's implication is that science is concerned with materialistic goals in the popular sense of someone who shallowly seeks wealth and possessions.

It's very much the same tactic creationists use to confuse the popular meaning of theory with the more precise scientific definition. It serves their purpose to distort meanings and promote misunderstanding, and when you see the same tactics being used over and again you gotta believe it's being done knowingly, and with intent.

--I think you may be quite right.
M.L.

Let me start out by saying thank you to Michael Lemonick for bringing this New York Times Op-Ed to my attention. I am a Christian, an engineer, and now a fan of Sam Brownback.

I am a Christian who, like Sam Brownback, believes in evolution if, "belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species... If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it." I BELIEVE in evolution but I also BELIEVE in God. What Senator Brownback is rejecting is the view that evolution means there is no God. An excellent question for the next Republican debate would be "Do you believe that God created the world?" I imagine almost every candidate would raise their hand. Sam Brownback's opinion is neither extremist nor illogical. What is 'extremist' about him is that he is a politician who stands by his beliefs, regardless of the political consequences. Now that is something I respect.

I also believe in gravity. Mr. Lemonick, you did all of your readers a disservice when you drew a parallel between Senator Brownback's views on God and evolution to a belief that "things fall to earth or planets orbit stars because God is there shoving on them." I hope your readers take the time to review the article themselves before passing judgment on Senator Brownback's views.

When we elect a president next year I hope we have the choice between two candidates whose thoughts and actions are based on uncompromising believes of what is right and wrong, as opposed to candidates who will govern by the opinion poll. Even if you disagree with Senator Brownback's viewpoint, I hope you can respect him for his strength of conviction. A trait I wish more politicians had.

--Thank you for the thoughtful, non-inflammatory post. But I disagree. The problem is your phrase "the view that evolution means there is no God." Very few evolutionary biologists, and very few scientists overall, whether religious or not, hold that view. So you're arguing against a strawman.

Evolution can explain the origin of species without God's direct intervention, just as gravity can explain the motions of the planets. Doesn't mean God isn't there.

Implying otherwise reflects either careless reading, ignorance or deliberate distortion.

As for Brownback, I respect his steadfast belief in God. I do not respect his parading ignorance of science, whether inadvertently or deliberately, as though it were some sort of principled stand.
M.L.

I believe in God. I believe that evolution has and continues to occur. I respect but do not agree with atheist's views. I believe that when the Bible states multiple times that humans do not possess the ability to understand everything about God, it speaks the truth. We all try to intellectualize too much. Brownback didn't say anything awful. Let the ones (eg Lemonick, etc)who believe that they hold the monopoly of truth have their fun; they aren't worth arguing with.

--And yet you are.

Trackback: http://tinyurl.com/yoqqsp

Dave Morris wrote "When we elect a president next year I hope we have the choice between two candidates whose thoughts and actions are based on uncompromising believes (sic) of what is right and wrong, as opposed to candidates who will govern by the opinion poll."

Leaving aside the false dichotomy in that sentence, the "uncompromising" part of that is deeply disturbing to me. It presupposes that the candidate is convinced that he (or she) knows the ultimate truth about right and wrong, and all who disagree MUST be therefore be wrong. That's the stuff of delusions.

What disturbs me most about theists like Brownback (and Morris) is that his fundamental worldview positively values belief in the teeth of contradictory evidence. People blather about wanting a "person of faith" in the White House. My infinitely preferable alternative is a person of reason.

It's really quite simple.

Science is a method for discovering fundamental laws of what and how.

Religion and mysticism address the "why" in our experience.

Politics is best served by staying completely out of this.

Last I checked, science was limited to what could be observed and actually proven. How we got here is scientific speculation, based on data, but not true science. There are different ways to interpret the data, based on the philosophy we approach it with. In light of the fact that we have no clue how a cell could form on its own, there's no reason to label divine intervention as unscientific.

"Does this mean that the senator also rejects the laws of gravity? Last I heard, they reflected that same view of the world."

Check your history books buddy, the guy who discovered the law of gravity (Newton) was a Creationist.

Gravity is an observable, demonstrateable law. evolution is a philosophy that tries to explain how we got here. The belief in creation does not negate the belief in natural laws. Creation is simply an explanation of where those laws came from. Let's have accurate journalism.

--Or you could just read more carefully. I didn't say the belief in creation negates a belief in natural laws, buddy. In fact, I said precisely the opposite--that it needn't do so at all, and often doesn't. For Brownback, and perhaps you, that's not the case.

Scientists makes deductions about things not directly observable all the time. Think anyone's ever seen a proton? Have a problem believing they exist?
M.L.

To Johnathan,

We have many clues about how cells and their various compartments could have formed, it's textbook college level cell biology.

Evolution is directly observable, on any given week I might read an elegant paper describing an evolutionary process. This past weeks Nature article (Incipient speciation by divergent adaptation and antagonistic epistasis in yeast. Nature. 2007 May 31;447) Fits the bill perfectly.

Though I'm not terribly familiar with the field, I would attempt to summarize the article as showing that when you develop two yeast populations in different conditions for a period of time, they eventually diverge and an attempt to imtermix the populations results in reduced meiotic and mitotic efficiency. Essentially they aren't able to produce as many successful offspring. This is an empirical observation of speciation by genetic isolation, tested and repeatable.

Basically, it just plain happens, and it is indeed as observable as gravity. To equate a series of empirical observations with philosophy implies a lack of understanding of science. We are not philosophers, we are scientists, there is a fundamental difference which is expressed in the first line of your post.

To all,

Sadly, the case of senator Brownback is all too common, when a person of faith is so convinced that they understand science better than those who have studied the natural world for their professional lives.

The scientific community, both in the United States and the world at large is an incredibly adept self-regulating body, and that body has very little tolerance for the inclusion of superstition and hypotheses that are ultimately untestable on the grounds of the supernatural.

Scientists, in this country it seems, must become better at communicating their craft to people. I know my family and many of my friends are terribly interested in my work, but to sit and describe it to them, and why it is important, is terribly frustrating for all of us sometimes (I'm a biophysicist).

I urge those who are curious enough about the ID theory to post on this board, to talk or learn from a biologist from a neutral stance and understand that they have no intention of disproving the existence of god, or subverting any particular religious institution. We do want people to understand the natural causes for natural phenomena (furthermore, most scientists simply love to talk about their work), and sometimes we get too caught up in our work to pay attention to the fact that we are not just working to expand our knowledge, but we have a duty to teach others that knowledge.

Best Regards,
J.L.

to J.L
We apparently learn something, a trickle of ,precisely ,from your knowledgeable and sensational comment.

personally speaking, i rarely know comprehensibly about the abstruse and profound science, however, i am not an agnostic ,conversely,with great curiosity about the universe, during the sparse free time, i would pick up the Nature magazine which i persistently treated as sermon of antitheist,conclusively, .that's educational and quintessentially sifnificant,plus, understandable for layman to read .

it's insane and entirely silly to take stance against science,for the sake of absolute loyalty to the religion , biased prejudices,or political ambition.

"Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."

In other words, Brownback rejects any science which contradicts what he already 'knows'. That is about as anti-science a point of view as one can get.

excellent

"What Senator Brownback is rejecting is the view that evolution means there is no God. "

No, Dave Morris...he was asked if he believed in evolution, and said no. Crafty indeed, he tries to extend his appeal beyond the flat-earthers, but still peppers his piece with fundamentalist code words. He confesses to a belief in "microevolution", but "microevolution" is a term most often tossed around by fundies, not biologists. Apparently, macroevolution (speciation) is going too far. When he says that "Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order", he is, of course, pandering to those who literally believe that men (note that he did not say "humans") were created in God's image.

WMD in Iraq, stem cells, global warming...it's time for the pendulum to swing in the direction of candidates who make decisions based on data and real analysis.

Evolution is not a philosophy, it is a scientific theory supported by the weight of scientific evidence. In my opinion, somebody who rejects observable scientific evidence in favor of blind adherence to an ancient religion is unfit to hold public office. We do not need anymore rabid fundamentalists in office who will rely on their personal religious beliefs to make decisions that affect everyone else. We do need moral, ethical, intelligent, reasonable and informed individuals making decisions in the best interests of the country, who will not be inappropriately swayed by superstition or mythology. We need to get our country back from these wackos and stop letting them get into positions of power. Religion and politics should be kept separate, and public policy should be driven by reality, not religious dogma.

To anyone who accepts "micro-evolution" and rejects "macro-evolution" I would like an explanation for what it is precisely that sets an impassible threshhold. I mean a scientifically demonstrated/demonstrable spanner in the works that tells a mutation "Now you are going too far, buddy. Stop right there."

If ring species or genetic drift are impossible, explain the lake jellyfish in Palau?

Should be simple enough without resorting to the Bible.

DM: "What Senator Brownback is rejecting is the view that evolution means there is no God. "

No, he's rejecting pretty much everything about evolution that doesn't fall under "small changes within species." He does that with a rhetorical trick: the "on the other hand" construction where he simply implicitly dumps all other aspects of evolution: all of which are as well validated by evidence as anything in science, into that category of godlessness. And he does it without even having to directly mention it.

Heck, the man never actually says that the age of the earth is probably not 6000years old, even though that belief isn't even endorsed by his church (he's Catholic). He's just pandering: trying not to say anything that will piss off his fundamentalist audience.

Science is not about belief. You don't get to choose which data fits your beliefs and which doesn't. You accept the theory that explains the data best. You reject theories that the data falsifies.

And there is no line item veto to remove parts of theories you have a personal problem with.

--But wouldn't some people be thrilled if there were!
M.L.

If you can't get your pea brain wrapped around the concept of geological time, then macroevolution will certainly seem implausible if not impossible. Of course if you don't "believe" in evolution you wouldn't consider the possibility that we have trouble empathizing with geological time because our brains evolved to help us survive and reproduce in middle order reality where time scales are measured in human life times.

Science is data; how the data is interpreted is opne to speculation. As far as the difference between micro and macroevolution goes; the more experiments geneticists are conducting, the more they are realizing that change within a species is limited. As far as geological time goes, it is well known that the geological time table was set before modern dating technics and that geologists ruitinely reject the numbers that don't agree with this time table. Therefore, they use the time table to support their dates, and the dates they like to support their time table. I'm not denying that evolution has scientific evidence in its favour, but I challenge anyone to look into the other interpretations of the data out there. A good place to begin would be "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe. Many prominent scientists have questioned evolution and the more science advances, the more challenges to this theory we find. If science is an open and honest search for truth, than we must be open to all the possibilities.

--But only the legitimate ones. Your use of "many" is incorrect, unless you mean "compared with the number of people on a basketball team." Behe's work has been shot full of holes. And your statement about what's "well known" about geologic timescales is simply nonsense. As is your statement about microvevolution.

OK, I'm done.
M.L.

To M.L.

If by legitimate, you mean, explanations that exclude God, then you have let your religious convictions influence how you do science. This is inevitable of course when dealing with the topic of origins. We all come to the table with different preconcieved ideas, and will all interpret that data in the way that fits with these ideas.

That is why evolution is not true science. It is an interpretation of data that fits a certain, I'll grant it, popular worldview. I don't have to prove evolution wrong in every point to be a credible Creationist. I simply have to be able to supply valid evidence for my position. Creationists continue to do this very well. But once again, I must emphasize that neither are really science and should not be taught as such. If you're going to call your blog "Eye on Science", I suggest you talk about science.

-ok, now I'm done

--And I appreciate your suggestion. However, I must respectfully disagree. Evolution started with a hypothesis based on observations of the natural world, predictions that test that hypothesis, and evidence that confirms the predictions in thousands of different ways. There's also a clear biochemical mechanism for evolution, discovered long after the original hypothesis was proposed. I'm quite baffled as to how you can label it "not science." And equally baffled as to what you WOULD call science. Care to enlighten us?
M.L.

@Jonathan

As a practicing scientist (insert joke here), I can tell you're wrong about what science is. Science is not about the data; science is about the use of logic (i.e., the hypothetico-deductive method...look it up) to analyze and interpret data.

Also on Behe, a point Michael didn't cover was this. Behe has admitted on the stand that by his definition if ID is a science, then so must be astrology.

Also...I suggest you check out Wheaton College's website. There's an organization for geologists based there. Check out the college's affiliation and what the geologists' organization says. You might be surprised.

ML, is there any way you could make it a little clearer when you respond to a comment? I was totally confused for a awhile as to who was saying what, and I don't doubt that other new readers might face the same confusion.

At the very least, bold your or blockquote your comments so they are visually distinct. a "--" just isn't clear enough. :)

--------------
I'll try to find out how to do that--believe it or not, it's not entirely obvious on the platform we're using.
M.L.

Jonathan Martin writes:

"As far as the difference between micro and macroevolution goes; the more experiments geneticists are conducting, the more they are realizing that change within a species is limited. "

Perhaps Mr Martin can be more specific here, particularly in regards to how this is a barrier to macroevolution. He might start by citing the actual studies which support his assertion.

I believe it. An easy addition, codewise to whatever platform, but I know how long it takes to get the tech boys at a huge website like Time to turn their attention hither and thither, not to mention to get someone to sign off on the change. :)

--Ahem...we have plenty of tech....women at Time, I'll have you know.
M.L.

"That is why evolution is not true science. It is an interpretation of data that fits a certain, I'll grant it, popular worldview"

Evolution is like a jigsaw puzzle. The pieces fit, and the picture is clear. Tree ring data, DNA sequences, dating from disparate approaches (carbon vs. potassium), geological data, ice cores, etc., etc....it all interlocks. Denying the picture takes either an act of forgivable stupidity, or active ignorance.

--------

تامر حسني-برامج-1-a1-19-b2-78-71-18-21-59-60-58-61-22-42-9-a9-b9-b3-bb-77-65-53-73-56-49-5-84-ss-دردشة-شات-دردشه-دردشات-دردشه
كتابيه-دردشة كتابية-شات
كتابيدردشه صوتيه-دردشة
صوتية-صوتيه-صوتي-شات
صوتي57-63-62-67-6-b6-b7-ab-6-29-75-4-8-82-83-15-16-17-11-12-55-13-72-80-79-25-64-24-51-26-tt-برامج
جوال-مقاطع بلوتوث-مسجات-نغمات-ثيمات-العاب
جوال-تصاميم-هكر-صور-صور
انمي-صور فنانين-ماسنجر-افلام-افلام
اجنبيه-منتدى للتعارف-منتديات
ادبية-منتدى للبنات فقط-العاب-العاب
بنات-سكساناشيد-صور
سيارات-رياضة-تحميل
اهداف-محمد-سياحة
وسفر-منتديات عامة-منتديات
اسلامية-منتديات سياسيه-تعليم
لغات اجنبيه-تعليم اللغه الانجليزيةنكت-خواطر-شعر-قصص-اساطير-روايات-حكم
وامثال-ازياء-منتدى
العروس-طبخ-طب-علم
النفس-برق-موقع
اغاني-مركز تحميلمنتديات-شات-دردشة-دليل
مواقع-مسجات--ثيمات-صور بنات-صور
حب-1-2-3-4-5
6-7-8-9-10-دردشة
بنت الدلع-دردشة بنات-شات
بنات-شات الحب-دردشة
الحب-منتديات بنات-شات
الغلا-صور رومانسيه-صور
رومنسيه-صور فناين-صور
سيارات-افلام-خواطر-ازياء-صور
حلوه-روايات-كويت
25-هيفاء وهبي-بنات
السعودية-موقع عمرو خالد-ناصر
الفراعنة-نانسي عجرم-ياسر
القحطاني-شات-نغمات
نوكيا-قصص وروايات-مسجات حب-مسجات
عتاب-مسجات شوق-
مسجات مقالب-مسجات
نكت-مسجات حلوة-بلياردو-شعر
حامد زيد-ازياء اطفال-ازياء
خليجية-فساتين سهرة-فساتين
افراح-مركز تحميل صور مقاطع فيديو مركز تحميل الصور تحميل صور صور رومانسية رسائل حب موقع باربي صور عيون منتديات صور بنات تحميل الماسنجر مسجات حب مسجات ثيمات العاب للبنات فقط mobile9 برامج الماسنجر مكياج خلفيات تحميل العاب صور أنمي ترجمة نصوص صور حب العاب تلبيس تلبيس باربي العاب ماريو sitemap صور سيارات برامج جوال رسائل الجوال موقع باربي اكواد جافا العاب بنات فساتين صور تلوين اليوتيوب صور مقاطع صوتية مقاطع فيديو للتحميل صور حلوه موسوعة الصور دليل مواقع صور قلوب تحميل برامج windows live messenger 9 عيون
برامج جوال وموبايل Drivers برامج صوت وفيديو تحميل العاب جديدة برامج شبكات برامج حماية برامج إدارة النظام برامج تصميم وفوتوشوب نسخ اقراص و DVD برامج كمبيوتر الكمبيوتر كتب عربية تحميل كتب عربية برامج اطفال برامج بورتابل portable برامج عربية ومعربة برنامج هندسة معمارية برنامج ضغط وفك ضغط تعاريف الأجهزة وخدمات أخرى برامج المكتبة برامج منوعة موقع برامج العاب بنات العاب مسجات مرض منتديات صور صدام حسين العاب تلبيس العاب باربي العاب ترتيب غرف العاب طبخ العاب مغامرات العاب اكشن العاب ميك اب العاب مكياج العاب بنات منوعة hguhf hguhf fkhj tr'-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

يوتيوب
صور
العب
العاب
لعب
بث مباشر
موقع يوتيوب
فيديو يوتيوب
فيديو
YouTube
موقع YouTube
تحميل YouTube
مركز تحميل
مركز تحميل الصور
تحميل صور
تحميل الصور
مركز تحميل الصور
تحميل
تحميل كتب
تحميل فلاش
تحميل
صور رومنسيه
صور رمانسيه
صور جميلات العرب
تفسير الاحلام
بلوتوث
مكياج
طبخ
افلام
مسلسلات
دليل مواقع
خلفيات
صور حلوه
العاب بنات
العاب توم جيري
العاب سيارت
العاب اطفال
افلام عربية

شات
 شات خوخ
منتديات خوخ
دردشة
صور  
العاب 
برامج
بلوتوث  
صور حب
صور بنات
صور رومانسيه
رسائل جوال
رسائل حلوه
رسائل عتاب
رسائل حزن
رسائلالطب
,طبيب ,التداوي
بالاعشاب ,الطب
البديل ,الاعشاب
الطب النبوي
,العسل
البصل ,
الثوم
صور مضحكة
صور غريبه
برامج جوال
برامج فيديو
برامج كمبيوتر
برامج تصفح
برامج البريد الالكتروني
برامج المحادثات
برامج حماية
برامج 2009
برنامج  توبيكات  توبيكات ماسنجر

توبيكات جديدة

توبيكات حلوة

توبيكات جنان
الفوتوشوب 
ثيمات جديدة
العاب جوال
 برامج الجوال
ثيمات نوكيا 
العاب نوكيا
 العاب للجوال
 رسائل حب
 رسائل مجانية
رسائل رومانسية
رسائل الحب
رسائل  جوال 
بلوتوث رقص 
بلوتوث فضائح
مقاطع  فيديو
برامج نوكيا 
برامج سيمنز 
 برامج جوال نوكيا 
برامج اريكسون 
نكت 
رسائل غراميه 
 رسايل 
نغمات

 d,jd,f

يوتيوب خوخ


افلام
 العاب
 

تفحيط
بلوتوث
 رمضانيات  


مطبخ
عروض الالعاب
 مضحك
الكاميرا الخفية
 كوميديا  فرفشة

دول  قصص  حواء

بنت  حصري

الجن  مرعبة

مكتبة
الزرقاوي
 المجاهدين
 
ممثلات
 مصارعه  دروس  عجائب
 إسلاميات  صوتيات 


 فيديوهات
 اهداف


 Arabic  Music
 دعايات


 كرتونيات
 رياضة


مقاطع
الشيعه  توم
وجيري  لقطات
كليبات للجوال
 خاصه
استار اكادمي

 معلايه  


لقطه  فلم
 هز

 الشرقي  صور
 
عبادي الجوهر

 سيارات

 العسكري

 اناشيد

 video clip  صوت
 song
 music


كرة

 الدوري الاسباني
 
youtube

 فيديو يوتيوب
 
Arabic Songs  
Arabic Films  
Download Arabic Movies  
Star Academy  بطولة


كأس

 العربية  
الأوروبية

 السعودية
 
المصرية  
الايطالية
 
الانجليزية
 
الاسبانية
 
العراب  
كليب عربى  
كليب لبناني
 
كليب مصرى  
كليب مضحك

 كليب هندي
 مضحكه
 ولادة


 مقاطع فيديو رقص

 مقاطع فيديو مضحكه

 ملفات فيديو
 
مواقع فيديو كليب  عرب
مكس  حوادث


رسوم

زواج

زيدان

سميح

عرب  قتل  قدم
 كلبات


اجنبى

 اسلامي  رقص
 
شاكيرا  عراقي

مجاني

 مشاهدة  مواقع


موقع
أفلام فيديو
 أناشيد


احدث
بحث فيديو  شاعر


 الجوال  عذيب
 بنات


جديد  دينا


عربي
 عربى


رتون 
 كلب

 كليب اجنبي
 
مقطع فيديو
 
أغاني فيديو
 أغاني


 اغانى فيديو
 اغانى فيديو كليب
 
اناشيد فيديو
 صورفيديو
 اجنبي


 Arab Girls  اعلانات  
حيوانات  
حوادث  
رونالدينهو
 Funny
 Commercials
 
ports  
Animals  Movies
 Pictures
 Games
 Cars
 Hidden Camera  
Cartoon Videos  
كوميديا مصرية
 
عرض ازياء  
افلام رومانسية
 
افلام اجنبية

 افلام عربية
 بريك
 
Prison  
Islamic  أدعية
 مواعظ


Music Videos  YouTube Videos
 
Metacafe Videos  
Bollywood  
Chinese Music Videos  
Other Videos  
Music Posters  
Music Lyrics  
Ringtones  
Send A Love Song  
Music Forums  
Submit Video  المدبلج
 مسلسل


 كاميرا

الجزيرة  Animal
 Photoshop  Nokia
 Football  
Real Madrid  BMW

 Nissan  Ford
 Honda
 hina
 korea


France

 Spain


Japon
 India


N95

 Kooora  Tube
 jokes


comedy  
MySpace  
Facebook  
Madona  jojo
 الهلال
 Nancy
 اغنيه


 البالتوك
 
ترافيان  travian
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16كورة
|
اخبار رياضية
منتدى رياضي |
صور رياضية
برامج | العاب
فلاش توبيكات |
شات منتدىبرامج
نوكيا
sitemap sitemap_vb
sitemap_video
sitemap_pic
sitemap_news
http://www.5aa5.com/sitemap.xml ">sitemap
http://forum.5aa5.com/vbseo_sitemap/data/sitemap_index.xml.gz ">
sitemap
sitemap
sitemap
sitemap
sitemap
sitemap
ثيمات نوكيا
العاب نوكياماسنجر 9
العاب