Nu stiu cum, desi tu nu aduci nicio dovada pentru afirmatiile tale referitoare la evolutionism sau ateism, tot noi cica ne "umplem de penibil". Noi iti explicam care sunt erorile de logica pe care le folosesti si tot noi nu suntem logici. Cu astfel de argumentari vrei sa convingi pe cineva? Jigneste pe altcineva te rog!
|
Citat:
Faptul ca nu am facut eu, personal, toate experimentele care dovedesc t.e. ca adevarata nu invalideaza t.e., ci ar putea, la limita, sa sustina punctul de vedere conform caruia nu am inteles-o, dar tot aleg sa cred in ea. E un punct de vedere valabil, la care ai dreptul, dar repet, faptul ca eu nu am dovedit t.e. drept adevarata in laboratorul din debara nu inseamna ca ea nu e adevarata. Validitatea/invaliditatea unei teorii stiintifice nu tine de vot popular, ci tine de dovezi. Mai mult, cred ca nimeni din totalitatea oamenilor de stiinta care se ocupa de evolutie nu a repetat personal toate experimentele care confirma evolutia, din simplul motiv ca multe dintre ele nu tin de ramura in care lucreaza (un biolog nu ar putea, de exemplu, sa lucreze cu algoritmii evolutionisti folositi in matematica, pentru ca nu e domeniul lui). Insa faptul ca dovezile din domenii diferite arata acelasi lucru, si anume ca t.e. esta valida, e doar un motiv in plus sa o consider valida. Citat:
Creierul uman e destul de unreliable ca unealta pentru observarea lumii care ne inconjoara, de aceea in stiinta se lucreaza cu experimente repetabile si falsifiabile. Se poate porni de la o idee, ipoteza sau presimtire, dar pana nu apar dovezile, nimeni nu spune ca a descoperit ceva. Citat:
Citat:
Serios acum, e ca si cum as spune ca eu stiu ca religia crestina e falsa, pentru ca Mohammed nu a existat. Sau ca frigiderul meu e un rahat, pentru ca nu imi face oua prajite dimineata. Citat:
Cat despre credinta neconditionata in drapelul rosu, aia e o abordare mult mai apropiata de religie decat de stiinta. Citat:
Indiferent de motive, sensul este clar. Atata timp cat vorbim despre t.e. si cineva zice "dar t.e.e nevalidata, pentru ca nu explica cum a aparut viata?", asta arata clar ca omul ala nu are notiunile de baza despre teoria pe care vrea sa o combata. Citat:
Citat:
Citat:
Citat:
Citat:
|
Citat:
Citat:
Rationamentele lui Hovind sunt sanatoase fiindca se bazeaza pe probabilitate si pe logica. Ele sunt practic ceea ce s-a discutat si pe acest forum: -ca din nimic nu poate aparea brusc ceva -ca materia nu se organizeaza singura în mecanisme -ca selectia naturala nu poate opera decât la organele si sistemele deja functionale -ca materia nu poate ajunge sa aiba senzatii si gânduri Acestea dovedesc absurditatea ateismului si eu nu am vazut pâna acum raspunsuri satisfacatoare din partea ateilor la aceste probleme. |
Citat:
Pentru claritatea discutiei, nu e mai bine sa folosim sensurile standard ale cuvintelor? Ce beneficiu apara in urma atasarii unui sens nou, valabil doar in cadrul unui anumit grup, forum sau discutie? Vrei sa vorbesti despre abiogeneza? Foarte bine, spune-i abiogeneza, nu evolutie, sau evolutionism, pentru ca nu e acelasi lucru. Citat:
Citat:
Raspunsurile la chestiile de mai sus exista si ele, chiar daca unele sunt supozitii in acest moment. Nu accepti raspunsuri pe care stiinta le descopera, sau presupuneri pe care stiinta le poate face, pentru ca (spui tu) nu exista dovezi. Ce dovezi exista ca versiunea creationista a genezei e adevarata? Citat:
|
Citat:
http://dexonline.ro/definitie/evoluționism Citat:
Citat:
Când sansele sunt extrem de mici improbabil înseamna imposibil. Sa recapitulam: de ce pe acea planeta aflata la distanta optima fata de soare s-a nimerit sa existe apa si de pe aceeasi planeta s-a nimerit sa existe atmosfera potrivita si tot pe aceeasi planeta s-a nimerit niste conditii chimice imposibil de aparut în natura si s-au format niste substante care practic nu aveau cum aparea iar aceste substante nu au avut altceva de facut decât sa se combine în sisteme tot mai complexe etc? Vezi tu, o coincidenta mai merge, dar când sunt un lant lung de coincidente trebuie sa fii naiv sa crezi în teoria aceasta. Ce dovezi exista în sprijinul creationismului? Cea mai puternica e sufletul, adica persoana umana, care e o entitate capabila de perceptii, senzatii, gânduri. Presupunând prin absurd ca materia se poate organiza singura în mecanisme super-complicate, totusi ea nu poate ajunge sa aiba perceptii despre ea însasi. Alta dovada e tocmai existenta acestei planete cu conditii de trai. O alta e faptul ca materia nu poate exista singura, fara un principiu superior ei. Citat:
ca pleaca de la premisa gresita ca nu exista nimic dincolo de materie. |
Citat:
Citat:
Nu exista distanta potrivita. Viata, asa cum exista ea pe Pamant acum, este consecinta chestiilor pe care le enumeri tu mai sus, nu scopul. Formele de viata actuale au aparut datorita distantei Pamant - Soare potrivite (printre alti factori), dar daca distanta era alta, ori nu apareau deloc, ori aratau cu totul altfel. Pui carul inaintea boilor. In plus, cel mai probabil procesul a fost mult mai complex decat il descrii, cu o groaza de "ratari", si putine succese. Dar Pamantul are 4.5 miliarde de ani vechime, si cea mai veche bacterie descoperita are 3.5. Deci bacteria aia a avut la dispozitie 1 miliard de ani ca sa ajunga acolo. Iti dai seama ce se poate intampla intr-un miliard de ani, ca sa nu mai vorbim de cele 3.5 care au urmat? Citat:
Citat:
Ti-am mai spus si o repet, toate beneficiile aduse de stiinta te inconjoara, si functioneaza. Crezi ca baietii aia in halate albe au "bushit" tocmai evolutia, si acum s-au adunat intr-o mare conspiratie ca sa isi ascunda greseala? Creationismul nu ar fi aparut in veci ca miscare, daca evolutia nu contrazicea povestea genezei. Asta este problema, contrazice cartea aia, dar ma rog, e problema cartii si a celor ce cred in ea, nu a stiintei. Ia zi, cum ar trebui sa ia stiinta in considerare ceva ce ne-observabil? Explica, te rog. |
Citat:
(numarul 10 cu 130 de zerouri dupa el). E atat de aproape de zero ca e practic zero. Citat:
Citat:
Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for granted by the popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery to evolutionary scientists The early Atmosphere Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. For example, iron is oxidized to form iron oxide or rust. The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. This departs from the usual evolutionary theorizing where a uniformistic view is held (i.e. where processes remain constant over vast stretches of time). In this case the present is NOT the key to the past. Instead, they propose a "reducing" (called thus because of the chemical reactions) atmosphere which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor. Newer schemes exclude ammonia and methane. There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262): Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T). Constructing the Building Blocks Before you can assemble the large macro-molecules necessary for life you must have a ready supply of basic organic molecules. Imagine a primitive ocean. You need tons of sugars, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, etc. There are a number of severe obstacles that must be overcome in getting a suitable ocean:
|
(continuare)
Constructing the Proteins and Nucleic Acids Any plausible theory of the origin of life must include the formation of complicated macro-molecules like proteins, DNA and RNA. In addition, there are other necessary components of life such as lipids, carbohydrates, hormones, enzymes, etc. that must be formed and be utilized to produce life. The syntheses of proteins from DNA is very complicated (see any biology textbook), and experiments to produce life in a test tube fall woefully short of creating life. There are a series of obstacles to the notion of life arising spontaneously from a sea of chemicals: CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT - Some of the necessary component chemicals react with one another is counter-productive ways. For example, phosphoric acid which would be necessary to form DNA would form an insoluble salt with calcium (calcium phosphate), sink to the bottom of a primordial sea, and be unavailable to make DNA. (Gish 1972, 23). POLYMERIZATION - How are the polymers formed in proteins and nucleic acids? A basic problem is that monomers never become polymers unless energy is supplied - they don't spontaneously arise. Protein formation in the laboratory requires a number of deliberate steps by a chemist. Experiments with catalysts and heating of dry amino acids have not demonstrated anything close to realistic life macro-molecules. (Gish 1972, 17-23) SEQUENCES - This detail is at the center of the origin of life problem. Assuming that there WAS a large supply of molecular building blocks, how do you get the specific sequences necessary in proteins and in DNA? Consider proteins: the sequence of amino acids determines the way the molecule will "fold up", which gives it physical properties. For a particular function, an exact sequence is required. What are the odds of this occurring by accident? The odds of forming a specific molecule with 100 amino acids is (1/20) ** 100 = 10e130 (the number 10 with 130 zeros following it) to 1. Forget it! Along these lines, the famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe (both atheists) calculated the probability of life forming by chance in five billion years on earth. The answer is 10e40000 to 1 (a number so close to zero as to effectively be zero). They then considered the universe with 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars and 20 billion years. Still no chance. Hoyle said the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747! OPTICAL ISOMERS - Amino acids are found in L-amino (left) or D-amino (right) types and are formed in equal proportions in synthesis experiments. Animals and people are made of almost exclusively L-animo types. How is this selection made? ... Still an open question. Biological Systems To go beyond proteins, DNA and RNA, and to assemble them into a working biological system is another mystery. We must go from disjointed molecules to complex interrelated systems that are capable of self-maintenance and self-replication. One approach (Oparin's Coacervate Theory) is to try to construct coacervates (large blobs of colloidal particles) from molecules. Unfortunately, this merely holds together random molecules by electrostatic chemical bonds. (Gish 1972, 27). Another scheme uses microspheres (Fox's Proteinoid Microsphere Theory) by the pyrocondensation of amino acids. But these are only random polymers of amino acids that are inherently unstable. There are no energy-utilizing systems, no replicating systems, etc. (Gish 1972, 30) A biological system is more than a collection of molecules thrown together - these blobs have to be able to do something, they have to act as little machines with input and output related to some greater purpose in the cell. How a biological system could arise still remains in the realm of "science fiction". The Living Cell Now we cross the line from the molecular to the living. Whether bacteria, animals, plants or people, we all have cells. Cells consist of many biological elements that are enclosed in a cell membrane that allows certain molecules to pass out of it and let others in. It must be able to perform many functions: self-replicate, maintain itself by the construction of new proteins, regulate it's functions, etc. Cells are tremendously complex and more complicated than any machine man has ever built. Even the smallest bacterial cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one hundred billion atoms. The simplest cells are not more primitive than, or ancestral of, larger ones. This poses an immediate problem. How do you get all the complicated machinery to work at the same time? It either all works or nothing works. For example, the information to construct the apparatus to synthesize proteins is stored in the DNA. But the extraction of this information requires the apparatus to be in place already (Denton 1985, 269). To explain the evolution of the cell requires imagining simpler "proto-cells". One such idea by Francis Crick (Denton 1985, 265) uses a proto-cell that is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation (termed "statistical proteins") to create new systems. This is challenged by the knowledge that even small errors cause devastating biological consequences. In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists. It is such a problem that mainstream scientific literature even considers the possibility of life dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia" (Scientific American, Feb 1992). But even this only moves to problem one step outward Citat:
Citat:
Citat:
|
@Traditie1 :
daca mai bagam in seama asemenea "inteligente" ,cred ca forumul asta se umple de zoaie(idei) ateiste si nu vrem asta,nu? lasa-i sa comenteze singuri ...sa intrebe singuri si sa-si raspunda singuri (sub alt pseudonim ,desigur)... "Iar de întrebările nebunești ...și de certuri și de sfădirile pentru lege(logica), ferește-te, căci sunt nefolositoare și deșarte. De omul eretic, după întâia și a doua mustrare, DEPARTEAZA-TE.Știind că unul ca acesta s-a abătut și a căzut în păcat, fiind singur de sine osândit." (Sf . Apostol Pavel Tit,3,9-11)- stia ce stia marele Pavel "Zis-a cel nebun în inima sa: "Nu este Dumnezeu!" Stricatu-s-au oamenii și urâți s-au făcut întru îndeletnicirile lor. Nu este cel ce face bunătate, nu este până la unul. (Ps. 13) mai bine sa citim ceva de Sf. Parinti sau sa facem rugaciune decat sa ne tulburam ,contrazicandu-ne cu " somitati " de- astea ,care ( ei insisi )se contrazic in aceeasi propozitie de 2 ori. ce poti sa astepti de la cineva care crede ca o celula ,care are complexitatea unei navete spatiale a aparut TOATA DEODATA cu milioanele de procese si instructiuni, ,caci daca lipsea o singura componenta toata celula era NEFUNCTIONALA;ce sa mai vorbim de om care e de miliarde de ori mai complex decat o celula; 0+0=0 DOAMNE AJUTA! |
Ai dreptate, o sa încerc sa-i ignor.
|
Ora este GMT +3. Ora este acum 17:14:50. |
Rulează cu: vBulletin Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.