#2376 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 16/06/2018 17:38
Je li to ti Smrčak tražiš materijalni dokaz!!!!????Smrcak15 wrote:
a kako znas koliko ih je izdrzalo tih 7 minuta, gdje to vidis?
Forum Klix.ba
Ateizam vs. Religija
Page 96 of 474
#2377 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 16/06/2018 17:39
Sada je 5:37 - pola od 14 je 7 znaci 2x7 jednako je 14 I + 1 (koji si ti i ne brojis se jer ne brojis se) jednako je 15 sto se jasno vidi po tvom nicku Smrcak 15Smrcak15 wrote:
to je 58 pregleda na jedan sahat
a kako znas koliko ih je izdrzalo tih 7 minuta, gdje to vidis?
#2378 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 16/06/2018 23:28
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/desig ... -machines/
Design in Living Things Goes Far Beyond Machines
Jonathan Wells
June 13, 2018, 4:05 PM
Machines
Seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes conceived of living things as complex machines, a concept now known as the “machine metaphor.” In 1998, Bruce Alberts (who was then president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) wrote that “the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”1
In Salvo 20, Casey Luskin wrote about how such machines pose a problem for unguided evolution and provide evidence for intelligent design (ID).2 Luskin focused on three molecular machines in particular:
ATP synthase, which operates like a rotary engine, recharges molecules of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which in turn provide energy for just about every function in a living cell.
Kinesin, which runs along microscopic fibers called microtubules, transports cargoes throughout the cell.
The ribosome, which is a combination of proteins and RNAs, translates messenger RNA (which is transcribed from DNA) into proteins.
These are only a few of the many hundreds of molecular machines that have been identified in living cells.
Luskin argued that complex molecular machines, which function only after all of their parts are in place, could not have been produced by unguided evolution but only by a goal-directed intelligence. In other words, molecular machines provide evidence for intelligent design.
Sometimes the Metaphor Backfires
Charles Darwin called his theory of evolution “descent with modification,” and he insisted that the process was undirected. Some people have tried to use the machine metaphor to illustrate evolution, but their efforts have backfired. In 1990, biologist Tim Berra published a book titled Evolution and the Myth of Creationism that included photographs of some automobiles. Berra wrote, “if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.”3 Since automobiles are engineered, however, the series of Corvettes actually illustrated design rather than undirected evolution. In 1997 Phillip E. Johnson, a critic of Darwinism and advocate of intelligent design, called this “Berra’s blunder.”4
In 2014, three engineers published an article in the Journal of Applied Physics comparing the evolution of airplanes to the evolution of animals. According to the authors, “Evolution means a flow organization (design) that changes over time,” and they argued that animals and “the human-and-machine species” (airplanes) “evolved in the same way.”5 But once again, the comparison of machines and living things implied design rather than undirected evolution.
According to pro-evolution philosophers Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, the machine metaphor should be abandoned altogether. In 2010 they wrote: “Creationists and their modern heirs of the Intelligent Design movement have been eager to exploit mechanical metaphors for their own purposes.” So “if we want to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom, not only do we have to exclude the ‘theory’ from the biology curriculum, but we also have to be weary [sic] of using scientific metaphors that bolster design-like misconceptions about living systems.” Pigliucci and Boudry concluded that since machine metaphors “have been grist to the mill of ID creationism, fostering design intuitions and other misconceptions about living systems, we think it is time to dispense with them altogether.”6
Organized from the Inside Out
But there are better reasons for us to be wary of the machine metaphor than wanting to keep intelligent design out of classroom. Eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant pointed out that a machine is organized by an external agent from the outside in, while a living thing organizes itself from the inside out. Kant wrote that a living thing “is then not a mere machine, for that has merely moving power, but it possesses in itself formative power of a self-propagating kind which it communicates to its materials though they have it not of themselves; it organizes them.”7
According to philosopher of biology Daniel Nicholson, “despite some interesting similarities, organisms and machines are fundamentally different kinds of systems . . . the former are intrinsically purposive whereas the latter are extrinsically purposive.” Thus, the machine metaphor “fails to provide an appropriate theoretical understanding of what living systems are.”8
Biologist (and intelligent design advocate) Ann Gauger has written that “the machine metaphor fails,” in part, because living organisms are “causally circular beings.”9 Not only do new cells require existing cells, but also many biosynthetic pathways require the very molecule that is being synthesized. For example, the biosynthesis of the amino acid cysteine requires an enzyme that contains cysteine.10 Without cysteine, a cell cannot make cysteine. Similarly, ATP synthase consists of more than a half-dozen protein subunits, each of which requires ATP for its biosynthesis.11 In other words, ATP is needed to make the molecular motor that makes ATP.
So the machine metaphor is inadequate as a description of living organisms. Then what about the inference to design from molecular machines? The inference is still justified, because the machine metaphor is appropriate for isolated structures such as ATP synthase, kinesin, and the ribosome. Each of these consists of several parts that are precisely arranged by a cell to utilize energy to perform a specific function (which is how “machine” is usually defined). None of them can perform their functions if parts are missing or arranged incorrectly. They point to intelligent design just as much as machines made by humans.
Awe-Inspiring Design
An organism, however, in contrast to an isolated structure, rearranges its parts over time. An organism imposes organization on the materials it comprises, and its organization changes throughout its life cycle.
To see how remarkable this is, imagine a machine familiar to most of us: a laptop computer. If a laptop computer were a plant or animal, it would start out as a protocomputer consisting of perhaps a few transistors, a little memory with some software, and a battery on a small circuit board. Then it would obtain materials from its surroundings to fabricate other components, and it would make its circuit board larger and more complex. Along the way, it would find ways to recharge its own battery. It would also write more programs. After reaching maturity, the laptop would run its programs by itself — imagine keys on the keyboard going up and down as though pressed by some unseen finger. If components were damaged, the computer could repair or replace them while continuing to operate. Eventually, the computer would fabricate one or more protocomputers, each capable of developing into other laptops just like it.
A lot of design goes into laptop computers. How much more design would have to go into making a laptop computer that could do all the things listed above? No one knows. But such a computer would certainly require more design, not less. And the design would be radically different from human design, because after the origin of the protocomputer the design it would be intrinsic rather than extrinsic.
So the inference to design from molecular machines is robust, but it’s only the beginning. There is design in living things that far transcends the machine metaphor — and it should inspire awe.
Notes:
Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92:291 (1998).
Casey Luskin, “Biomechanics: Isn’t the Intricacy of Ubiquitous Molecular Machines Evidence for Design?” Salvo 20 (2012), 52–54.
Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stanford University Press, 1990), 117–119.
Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Intervarsity Press, 1997), 62–63.
Adrian Bejan et al., “The evolution of airplanes,” Journal of Applied Physics 116:044901 (2014).
Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, “Why Machine-Information Metaphors are Bad for Science and Science Education,” Science & Education (June 11, 2010).
Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Judgement (Kritik der Urteilskraft), trans. J. H. Bernard (Macmillan, 1914), §65.
Daniel Nicholson, “The Machine Conception of the Organism in Development and Evolution: A Critical Analysis,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 48B (2014), 162–174.
Ann Gauger, “Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails,” Evolution News & Views (June 1, 2011).
Ruma Banerjee et al., “Reaction mechanism and regulation of cystathionine beta-synthase,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1647 (2003), 30–35. Alexander Schiffer et al., “Structure of the dissimilatory sulfite reductase from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Archaeoglobus fulgidus,” Journal of Molecular Biology 379 (2008), 1063–1074.
Robert K. Nakamoto et al., “The Rotary Mechanism of the ATP Synthase,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 476 (2008), 43–50.
Design in Living Things Goes Far Beyond Machines
Jonathan Wells
June 13, 2018, 4:05 PM
Machines
Seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes conceived of living things as complex machines, a concept now known as the “machine metaphor.” In 1998, Bruce Alberts (who was then president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) wrote that “the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”1
In Salvo 20, Casey Luskin wrote about how such machines pose a problem for unguided evolution and provide evidence for intelligent design (ID).2 Luskin focused on three molecular machines in particular:
ATP synthase, which operates like a rotary engine, recharges molecules of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which in turn provide energy for just about every function in a living cell.
Kinesin, which runs along microscopic fibers called microtubules, transports cargoes throughout the cell.
The ribosome, which is a combination of proteins and RNAs, translates messenger RNA (which is transcribed from DNA) into proteins.
These are only a few of the many hundreds of molecular machines that have been identified in living cells.
Luskin argued that complex molecular machines, which function only after all of their parts are in place, could not have been produced by unguided evolution but only by a goal-directed intelligence. In other words, molecular machines provide evidence for intelligent design.
Sometimes the Metaphor Backfires
Charles Darwin called his theory of evolution “descent with modification,” and he insisted that the process was undirected. Some people have tried to use the machine metaphor to illustrate evolution, but their efforts have backfired. In 1990, biologist Tim Berra published a book titled Evolution and the Myth of Creationism that included photographs of some automobiles. Berra wrote, “if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.”3 Since automobiles are engineered, however, the series of Corvettes actually illustrated design rather than undirected evolution. In 1997 Phillip E. Johnson, a critic of Darwinism and advocate of intelligent design, called this “Berra’s blunder.”4
In 2014, three engineers published an article in the Journal of Applied Physics comparing the evolution of airplanes to the evolution of animals. According to the authors, “Evolution means a flow organization (design) that changes over time,” and they argued that animals and “the human-and-machine species” (airplanes) “evolved in the same way.”5 But once again, the comparison of machines and living things implied design rather than undirected evolution.
According to pro-evolution philosophers Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, the machine metaphor should be abandoned altogether. In 2010 they wrote: “Creationists and their modern heirs of the Intelligent Design movement have been eager to exploit mechanical metaphors for their own purposes.” So “if we want to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom, not only do we have to exclude the ‘theory’ from the biology curriculum, but we also have to be weary [sic] of using scientific metaphors that bolster design-like misconceptions about living systems.” Pigliucci and Boudry concluded that since machine metaphors “have been grist to the mill of ID creationism, fostering design intuitions and other misconceptions about living systems, we think it is time to dispense with them altogether.”6
Organized from the Inside Out
But there are better reasons for us to be wary of the machine metaphor than wanting to keep intelligent design out of classroom. Eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant pointed out that a machine is organized by an external agent from the outside in, while a living thing organizes itself from the inside out. Kant wrote that a living thing “is then not a mere machine, for that has merely moving power, but it possesses in itself formative power of a self-propagating kind which it communicates to its materials though they have it not of themselves; it organizes them.”7
According to philosopher of biology Daniel Nicholson, “despite some interesting similarities, organisms and machines are fundamentally different kinds of systems . . . the former are intrinsically purposive whereas the latter are extrinsically purposive.” Thus, the machine metaphor “fails to provide an appropriate theoretical understanding of what living systems are.”8
Biologist (and intelligent design advocate) Ann Gauger has written that “the machine metaphor fails,” in part, because living organisms are “causally circular beings.”9 Not only do new cells require existing cells, but also many biosynthetic pathways require the very molecule that is being synthesized. For example, the biosynthesis of the amino acid cysteine requires an enzyme that contains cysteine.10 Without cysteine, a cell cannot make cysteine. Similarly, ATP synthase consists of more than a half-dozen protein subunits, each of which requires ATP for its biosynthesis.11 In other words, ATP is needed to make the molecular motor that makes ATP.
So the machine metaphor is inadequate as a description of living organisms. Then what about the inference to design from molecular machines? The inference is still justified, because the machine metaphor is appropriate for isolated structures such as ATP synthase, kinesin, and the ribosome. Each of these consists of several parts that are precisely arranged by a cell to utilize energy to perform a specific function (which is how “machine” is usually defined). None of them can perform their functions if parts are missing or arranged incorrectly. They point to intelligent design just as much as machines made by humans.
Awe-Inspiring Design
An organism, however, in contrast to an isolated structure, rearranges its parts over time. An organism imposes organization on the materials it comprises, and its organization changes throughout its life cycle.
To see how remarkable this is, imagine a machine familiar to most of us: a laptop computer. If a laptop computer were a plant or animal, it would start out as a protocomputer consisting of perhaps a few transistors, a little memory with some software, and a battery on a small circuit board. Then it would obtain materials from its surroundings to fabricate other components, and it would make its circuit board larger and more complex. Along the way, it would find ways to recharge its own battery. It would also write more programs. After reaching maturity, the laptop would run its programs by itself — imagine keys on the keyboard going up and down as though pressed by some unseen finger. If components were damaged, the computer could repair or replace them while continuing to operate. Eventually, the computer would fabricate one or more protocomputers, each capable of developing into other laptops just like it.
A lot of design goes into laptop computers. How much more design would have to go into making a laptop computer that could do all the things listed above? No one knows. But such a computer would certainly require more design, not less. And the design would be radically different from human design, because after the origin of the protocomputer the design it would be intrinsic rather than extrinsic.
So the inference to design from molecular machines is robust, but it’s only the beginning. There is design in living things that far transcends the machine metaphor — and it should inspire awe.
Notes:
Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92:291 (1998).
Casey Luskin, “Biomechanics: Isn’t the Intricacy of Ubiquitous Molecular Machines Evidence for Design?” Salvo 20 (2012), 52–54.
Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stanford University Press, 1990), 117–119.
Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Intervarsity Press, 1997), 62–63.
Adrian Bejan et al., “The evolution of airplanes,” Journal of Applied Physics 116:044901 (2014).
Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, “Why Machine-Information Metaphors are Bad for Science and Science Education,” Science & Education (June 11, 2010).
Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Judgement (Kritik der Urteilskraft), trans. J. H. Bernard (Macmillan, 1914), §65.
Daniel Nicholson, “The Machine Conception of the Organism in Development and Evolution: A Critical Analysis,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 48B (2014), 162–174.
Ann Gauger, “Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails,” Evolution News & Views (June 1, 2011).
Ruma Banerjee et al., “Reaction mechanism and regulation of cystathionine beta-synthase,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1647 (2003), 30–35. Alexander Schiffer et al., “Structure of the dissimilatory sulfite reductase from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Archaeoglobus fulgidus,” Journal of Molecular Biology 379 (2008), 1063–1074.
Robert K. Nakamoto et al., “The Rotary Mechanism of the ATP Synthase,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 476 (2008), 43–50.
#2379 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 16/06/2018 23:41
is it Science, is it Nature, is it an airplane...
nop, standardni muslimanski izvoriJohn Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American author and advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design... Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community.
#2380 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 16/06/2018 23:42
Interesantno je kada dvije osobe čitaju isti članak i odluče da označe različitedijelove da se dolazi do drugačijeg zaključka.
“Creationists and their modern heirs of the Intelligent Design movement have been eager to exploit mechanical metaphors for their own purposes.” So “if we want to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom, not only do we have to exclude the ‘theory’ from the biology curriculum, but we also have to be weary [sic] of using scientific metaphors that bolster design-like misconceptions about living systems.” Pigliucci and Boudry concluded that since machine metaphors “have been grist to the mill of ID creationism, fostering design intuitions and other misconceptions about living systems, we think it is time to dispense with them altogether
....
According to philosopher of biology Daniel Nicholson, “despite some interesting similarities, organisms and machines are fundamentally different kinds of systems . . . the former are intrinsically purposive whereas the latter are extrinsically purposive.” Thus, the machine metaphor “fails to provide an appropriate theoretical understanding of what living systems are
..
So the machine metaphor is inadequate as a description of living organisms. Then what about the inference to design from molecular machines? The inference is still justified, because the machine metaphor is appropriate for isolated structures such as ATP synthase, kinesin, and the ribosome. Each of these consists of several parts that are precisely arranged by a cell to utilize energy to perform a specific function (which is how “machine” is usually defined). None of them can perform their functions if parts are missing or arranged incorrectly. They point to intelligent design just as much as machines made by humans.
An organism, however, in contrast to an isolated structure, rearranges its parts over time. An organism imposes organization on the materials it comprises, and its organization changes throughout its life cycle.
To see how remarkable this is, imagine a machine familiar to most of us: a laptop computer. If a laptop computer were a plant or animal, it would start out as a protocomputer consisting of perhaps a few transistors, a little memory with some software, and a battery on a small circuit board. Then it would obtain materials from its surroundings to fabricate other components, and it would make its circuit board larger and more complex. Along the way, it would find ways to recharge its own battery. It would also write more programs. After reaching maturity, the laptop would run its programs by itself — imagine keys on the keyboard going up and down as though pressed by some unseen finger. If components were damaged, the computer could repair or replace them while continuing to operate. Eventually, the computer would fabricate one or more protocomputers, each capable of developing into other laptops just like it.
“Creationists and their modern heirs of the Intelligent Design movement have been eager to exploit mechanical metaphors for their own purposes.” So “if we want to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom, not only do we have to exclude the ‘theory’ from the biology curriculum, but we also have to be weary [sic] of using scientific metaphors that bolster design-like misconceptions about living systems.” Pigliucci and Boudry concluded that since machine metaphors “have been grist to the mill of ID creationism, fostering design intuitions and other misconceptions about living systems, we think it is time to dispense with them altogether
....
According to philosopher of biology Daniel Nicholson, “despite some interesting similarities, organisms and machines are fundamentally different kinds of systems . . . the former are intrinsically purposive whereas the latter are extrinsically purposive.” Thus, the machine metaphor “fails to provide an appropriate theoretical understanding of what living systems are
..
So the machine metaphor is inadequate as a description of living organisms. Then what about the inference to design from molecular machines? The inference is still justified, because the machine metaphor is appropriate for isolated structures such as ATP synthase, kinesin, and the ribosome. Each of these consists of several parts that are precisely arranged by a cell to utilize energy to perform a specific function (which is how “machine” is usually defined). None of them can perform their functions if parts are missing or arranged incorrectly. They point to intelligent design just as much as machines made by humans.
An organism, however, in contrast to an isolated structure, rearranges its parts over time. An organism imposes organization on the materials it comprises, and its organization changes throughout its life cycle.
To see how remarkable this is, imagine a machine familiar to most of us: a laptop computer. If a laptop computer were a plant or animal, it would start out as a protocomputer consisting of perhaps a few transistors, a little memory with some software, and a battery on a small circuit board. Then it would obtain materials from its surroundings to fabricate other components, and it would make its circuit board larger and more complex. Along the way, it would find ways to recharge its own battery. It would also write more programs. After reaching maturity, the laptop would run its programs by itself — imagine keys on the keyboard going up and down as though pressed by some unseen finger. If components were damaged, the computer could repair or replace them while continuing to operate. Eventually, the computer would fabricate one or more protocomputers, each capable of developing into other laptops just like it.
#2381 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 17/06/2018 09:42
Smrle crpi znanje od ove intelektualne gromade i prestiznog naucnika. Primjetio sam da se cesto koristi fazama dr. sejha Elvedina Pezica, do te mjere seze fasciniranost ovim selefijskim guruom.Dozer wrote:Pa kud ces bolji i jaci argument od dokazanih naucnih cinjenica o dijeljenju DNK svega zivog na planeti...Smrcak15 wrote:prihvatit ce Smrle samo ti ponudi valjan i logican argument...a ne argument tipa, dodji da ti prodam u tegli magle, jooj da vidis kako je dobra magla, prva klasa, hoces li kupitiAoida wrote: Sa razlikom sto ce 6-godisnjak prije prihvatiti i shvatiti to objasnjeno, nego sto ce Smrcak prihvatiti tudji argument kao validan.
0.45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9IA7O120jM
dr. sejh Elvedin Pezic objasnjava Darvinovu teoriju
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0xY0C-stBU
i jos jednom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkWRDVyT4aM
#2382 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 17/06/2018 10:29
Izgleda da je nepismenost jedan od preduslova za ovo misionarenje.Kikibombona wrote:
Smrle crpi znanje od ove intelektualne gromade i prestiznog naucnika. Primjetio sam da se cesto koristi fazama dr. sejha Elvedina Pezica, do te mjere seze fasciniranost ovim selefijskim guruom.
0.45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9IA7O120jM
dr. sejh Elvedin Pezic objasnjava Darvinovu teoriju
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0xY0C-stBU
i jos jednom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkWRDVyT4aM
#2383 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 17/06/2018 10:37
Možda "daije" samo slijede nepismenost kao sunnet nepismenog poslanika.
#2384 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 17/06/2018 10:46
Bosanski selefijski sejhovi su u 90% slucajeva olicenje nepismenosti i povrsnosti. Elvedin Pezic je najpopularniji bosanski selefija sto dovoljno govori o kakvoj se skupini radi. Jedino je Safet Kuduzovic inteligentan covjek, od svih selefija koje sam upratio.zforumas wrote:Izgleda da je nepismenost jedan od preduslova za ovo misionarenje.
Kako kazu sufije: 'dok mi ronimo mrskim dubinama, selefije se bacaju po plicaku'.
#2385 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 17/06/2018 17:42
Banned user for reason “trolanje”
» dadinjo33
7 dana
» dadinjo33
7 dana
dadinjo33 wrote:Možda "daije" samo slijede nepismenost kao sunnet nepismenog poslanika.
#2386 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 17/06/2018 19:07
Kikibombona wrote:
Smrle crpi znanje od ove intelektualne gromade i prestiznog naucnika. Primjetio sam da se cesto koristi fazama dr. sejha Elvedina Pezica, do te mjere seze fasciniranost ovim selefijskim guruom.
0.45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9IA7O120jM
dr. sejh Elvedin Pezic objasnjava Darvinovu teoriju
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0xY0C-stBU
i jos jednom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkWRDVyT4aM
po pitanju evolucije i inteligentnog dizajna , neSmrle crpi znanje od ove intelektualne gromade i prestiznog naucnika.
#2387 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 10:18
Ovaj clip sto objasnjava Darvinovu teoriju, upratio sam mu pokrete tijela, isto horsashKikibombona wrote:Bosanski selefijski sejhovi su u 90% slucajeva olicenje nepismenosti i povrsnosti. Elvedin Pezic je najpopularniji bosanski selefija sto dovoljno govori o kakvoj se skupini radi. Jedino je Safet Kuduzovic inteligentan covjek, od svih selefija koje sam upratio.zforumas wrote:Izgleda da je nepismenost jedan od preduslova za ovo misionarenje.
Kako kazu sufije: 'dok mi ronimo mrskim dubinama, selefije se bacaju po plicaku'.
#2388 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 11:44
cLo wrote:Prije no što krenete s optužbama, provjerite kalendar, možda nije Smrčko, možda je ljeto.Aoida wrote:Bloo wrote:
Mene lično izbaci iz cipela
Da se razumijemo...i mene iz cipela izbaci.
Evo vam po japanke za bajram
Ako vas i iz njih bude nešto bacalo, onda je to Smrčko
ipneeeeeeemaaaa................ volim ovu pjesmu....
#2389 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 12:21
Za sta je dr. Pezic ekspert?Smrcak15 wrote:po pitanju evolucije i inteligentnog dizajna , ne
Za tumacenje Abdul Vehaba, ibn Baza i ibn Tejmije?
Ili je ekseprt za devijacije poput bluda, nemorala, odnosa muskarac-zena...?
Doslo mi je u zadnjih par godina par izuzetno cudnih slucajeva, sto do tada nisam mogao da pomislim... znaci, to je poznato da je nerijetka pojava kod muskaraca i da je to bukvalno nepoznata stvar kod zena...
Dr. Pezic i 90% selefijskih sejhova su prava riznica nepismenosti, povrsnosti i neznanja.
#2390 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 12:25
Sestra ibn Masturbatorka
#2391 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:07
Smrcak15 wrote:https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/desig ... -machines/
Design in Living Things Goes Far Beyond Machines
Ok Smrcak....zarad rasprave hajdemo reci da jeste inteligentni dizajn u pitanju.
Zasto je Bog kreator to inteligentnog dizajna, a ne neka super napredno razvijena venzemaljska vrsta zivih bica?
#2392 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:15
zato sto bi usli u problematicnost regresije prijasnjih dogadjaja, jer bi se pitali onda a ko je njih stvorio, pa onda bi se pitali a ko je stvorio stvaraoce te napredne civilizacije itd itdAoida wrote:Smrcak15 wrote:https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/desig ... -machines/
Design in Living Things Goes Far Beyond Machines
Ok Smrcak....zarad rasprave hajdemo reci da jeste inteligentni dizajn u pitanju.
Zasto je Bog kreator to inteligentnog dizajna, a ne neka super napredno razvijena venzemaljska vrsta zivih bica?
znaci regresija prijasnjih dogadjaja, gdje se ide unazad bilo bi problematicno i nelogicno, jer mora negdje biti pocetna tacka, neki neprouzorkovani uzrok svega.
druga stvar sa tom teorijom da je napredna civlizacija stvorila nas, problem sa tim je sto to ne objasnjava kako to da je ta napredna civilizcija nastimala suncev sistem za nas zivot, tacna udaljenost sunca od zemlje, nagib zemlje, razmak mjeseca od zemlje, rapodjela kisika u atmosferi i mnoge druge konstante u svemiru. Napredna civilizacija ne objasnjava Big bang, jer ako su oni u univerzumu to znaci i njih je neko stvorio poslije Big banga.
treca stvar, nikad se nisu objavili da su oni to uradili, barem poslali poslanika, nesto, bilo sta, samo da se naznaci da su to oni, ali nista....nego samo je jedan jedini Bog slao poslanike, i knjige kao uputu za covjecanstvo.
#2393 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:26
sta je vjerovatnije:
(1) da je neko namjerno nastimao citav univerzum da bi 13.7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska smrcak postojao i pisao po forumu, ili
(2) da su se 9,7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska, kada su se za to ispunili geolosko-klimatski i drugi uslovi u jednom dijelu jedne galaksije, pojavili primitivni oblici zivota, koji ce u sljecedih 4 milijardne godina evoluirati u smrcka koji ce pisati na forumu da je neko namjerno nastimao univerzum za njega
(1) da je neko namjerno nastimao citav univerzum da bi 13.7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska smrcak postojao i pisao po forumu, ili
(2) da su se 9,7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska, kada su se za to ispunili geolosko-klimatski i drugi uslovi u jednom dijelu jedne galaksije, pojavili primitivni oblici zivota, koji ce u sljecedih 4 milijardne godina evoluirati u smrcka koji ce pisati na forumu da je neko namjerno nastimao univerzum za njega
#2394 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:30
Ovde regresija ne znaci sto bi ti htio da znaci.Smrcak15 wrote:
zato sto bi usli u problematicnost regresije prijasnjih dogadjaja, jer bi se pitali onda a ko je njih stvorio, pa onda bi se pitali a ko je stvorio stvaraoce te napredne civilizacije itd itd
znaci regresija prijasnjih dogadjaja, gdje se ide unazad bilo bi problematicno i nelogicno, jer mora negdje biti pocetna tacka, neki neprouzorkovani uzrok svega.
druga stvar sa tom teorijom da je napredna civlizacija stvorila nas, problem sa tim je sto to ne objasnjava kako to da je ta napredna civilizcija nastimala suncev sistem za nas zivot, tacna udaljenost sunca od zemlje, nagib zemlje, razmak mjeseca od zemlje, rapodjela kisika u atmosferi i mnoge druge konstante u svemiru. Napredna civilizacija ne objasnjava Big bang, jer ako su oni u univerzumu to znaci i njih je neko stvorio poslije Big banga.
treca stvar, nikad se nisu objavili da su oni to uradili, barem poslali poslanika, nesto, bilo sta, samo da se naznaci da su to oni, ali nista....nego samo je jedan jedini Bog slao poslanike, i knjige kao uputu za covjecanstvo.
Shodno tvom nacinu razmisljanja, taj odlazak unazad je problematican i nelogican.
Jel hoces onda reci da recimo historija...antropologija uzalud postoje?
Ukoliko postoji neki drugi vid zivota sem naseg koji je ujedno i daleko napredniji od nas....u sta oni vjeruju?
Sta mislis...kakav je koncept njihovih vrijednosti?
I zasto bi bilo sta objavljivali ako smo njihov eksperiment?
Zasto bi naznacili da su tu?
Ni ti svom djetetu ne naznacis da si tu kad ga tajno gledas kako se lijepo igra.
#2395 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:30
naravno 1harač wrote:sta je vjerovatnije:
(1) da je neko namjerno nastimao citav univerzum da bi 13.7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska smrcak postojao i pisao po forumu, ili
(2) da su se 9,7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska, kada su se za to ispunili geolosko-klimatski i drugi uslovi u jednom dijelu jedne galaksije, pojavili primitivni oblici zivota, koji ce u sljecedih 4 milijardne godina evoluirati u smrcka koji ce pisati na forumu da je neko namjerno nastimao univerzum za njega
a da je 2, onda nam ti trebas objasniti kako puzle mogu same da se stvore na sred puistinje i da se posloze da sacine jednu sliku?
#2396 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:35
2 je manje vjerovatno od te bajke pod 1 samo pod uslovom da mislis da si ti (mi, ljudi, bilo sta), morali nastatati i biti bas u ovom obliku. tada bi se zaista mogao pitati kako to da je bas ispalo ovako kako je moralo ispasti. buduci da je ta pretpostavka netacna (to sto postoje ljudi u ovom obliku, ili ptice, ili bilo sta drugo je - sretna - slucajnost), sve tvoje tvrdnje o stvarima koje ne mogu biti drugacije nego sto jesu padaju u voduSmrcak15 wrote:naravno 1harač wrote:sta je vjerovatnije:
(1) da je neko namjerno nastimao citav univerzum da bi 13.7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska smrcak postojao i pisao po forumu, ili
(2) da su se 9,7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska, kada su se za to ispunili geolosko-klimatski i drugi uslovi u jednom dijelu jedne galaksije, pojavili primitivni oblici zivota, koji ce u sljecedih 4 milijardne godina evoluirati u smrcka koji ce pisati na forumu da je neko namjerno nastimao univerzum za njega
a da je 2, onda nam ti trebas objasniti kako puzle mogu same da se stvore na sred puistinje i da se posloze da sacine jednu sliku?
#2397 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:37
Aoida wrote:Ovde regresija ne znaci sto bi ti htio da znaci.Smrcak15 wrote:
zato sto bi usli u problematicnost regresije prijasnjih dogadjaja, jer bi se pitali onda a ko je njih stvorio, pa onda bi se pitali a ko je stvorio stvaraoce te napredne civilizacije itd itd
znaci regresija prijasnjih dogadjaja, gdje se ide unazad bilo bi problematicno i nelogicno, jer mora negdje biti pocetna tacka, neki neprouzorkovani uzrok svega.
druga stvar sa tom teorijom da je napredna civlizacija stvorila nas, problem sa tim je sto to ne objasnjava kako to da je ta napredna civilizcija nastimala suncev sistem za nas zivot, tacna udaljenost sunca od zemlje, nagib zemlje, razmak mjeseca od zemlje, rapodjela kisika u atmosferi i mnoge druge konstante u svemiru. Napredna civilizacija ne objasnjava Big bang, jer ako su oni u univerzumu to znaci i njih je neko stvorio poslije Big banga.
treca stvar, nikad se nisu objavili da su oni to uradili, barem poslali poslanika, nesto, bilo sta, samo da se naznaci da su to oni, ali nista....nego samo je jedan jedini Bog slao poslanike, i knjige kao uputu za covjecanstvo.
Shodno tvom nacinu razmisljanja, taj odlazak unazad je problematican i nelogican.
Jel hoces onda reci da recimo historija...antropologija uzalud postoje?
Ukoliko postoji neki drugi vid zivota sem naseg koji je ujedno i daleko napredniji od nas....u sta oni vjeruju?
Sta mislis...kakav je koncept njihovih vrijednosti?
I zasto bi bilo sta objavljivali ako smo njihov eksperiment?
Zasto bi naznacili da su tu?
Ni ti svom djetetu ne naznacis da si tu kad ga tajno gledas kako se lijepo igra.
ne pricam ja o tome, nego pricamo o periodu prije Big banga, u dimenziji gdje je Bog, a ne o civilizacijama koje su se smjenjivale na zemlji.Jel hoces onda reci da recimo historija...antropologija uzalud postoje?
Ukoliko postoji neki drugi vid zivota sem naseg koji je ujedno i daleko napredniji od nas....u sta oni vjeruju?
sta bi bilo kad bi bilo....
ko to znanelogicno vjerovanje se ne zamjenjuje sa jos nelogicniim vjerovanjem, nego se gleda da nelogicno vjerovanje se zamijeni sa logicnim vjerovanje.I zasto bi bilo sta objavljivali ako smo njihov eksperiment?
Zasto bi naznacili da su tu?
ako je nelogicno vjerovanje da smo sami od sebe nastali nekakvim evolucijama , pa posto nam je to nelogicno daj da ukljucimo naprednu civiliaciju u stvar, ali i dalje problem ostaje, kako su oni stvoreni, ko je njih stvorio, gdje su bili prije big banga , kako su mogli da nastimaju suncev sistem za zivot na zemlji? itd td
#2398 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:40
stani maloharač wrote:2 je manje vjerovatno od te bajke pod 1 samo pod uslovom da mislis da si ti (mi, ljudi, bilo sta), morali nastatati i biti bas u ovom obliku. tada bi se zaista mogao pitati kako to da je bas ispalo ovako kako je moralo ispasti. buduci da je ta pretpostavka netacna (to sto postoje ljudi u ovom obliku, ili ptice, ili bilo sta drugo je - sretna - slucajnost), sve tvoje tvrdnje o stvarima koje ne mogu biti drugacije nego sto jesu padaju u voduSmrcak15 wrote:naravno 1harač wrote:sta je vjerovatnije:
(1) da je neko namjerno nastimao citav univerzum da bi 13.7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska smrcak postojao i pisao po forumu, ili
(2) da su se 9,7 milijardi godina nakon velikog praska, kada su se za to ispunili geolosko-klimatski i drugi uslovi u jednom dijelu jedne galaksije, pojavili primitivni oblici zivota, koji ce u sljecedih 4 milijardne godina evoluirati u smrcka koji ce pisati na forumu da je neko namjerno nastimao univerzum za njega
a da je 2, onda nam ti trebas objasniti kako puzle mogu same da se stvore na sred puistinje i da se posloze da sacine jednu sliku?
sta je logicno
da celija nastane iz nista od nista , celija koja je puna nanomasinerije , poslije ta masinerije ode u nista kad smrt nastupi
ili
je loigicnije da je inteligentni kretaor stvori te kompleksne masine u celijama.
a ako kazes da je slucajno nastalo, to je isto kao da mi kazes puzle se same stvorile, poslozile na tacne pozicije da cine jednu sliku.
#2399 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:44
stani maloSmrcak15 wrote:
stani malo
sta je logicno
da celija nastane iz nista od nista , celija koja je puna nanomasinerije , poslije ta masinerije ode u nista kad smrt nastupi
ili
je loigicnije da je inteligentni kretaor stvori te kompleksne masine u celijama.
a ako kazes da je slucajno nastalo, to je isto kao da mi kazes puzle se same stvorile, poslozile na tacne pozicije da cine jednu sliku.
po muslimanskoj slici mikrobiologije, prije 4 milijardne godina, na zemlji, BUM!, nastala je iz nicega eukariotska celija u danasnjem obliku, sa svom svojom kompleksnoscu?
#2400 Re: Ateizam vs. Religija
Posted: 18/06/2018 15:50
Ne moze on to shvatiti jer je ogranicenog misljenja (bez uvrede) jer njegov mozak je tako istreniran/manipuslisan da mu je razmilsalnje ograniceno i ne bih mogao shvatiti da je sve slucajno nastalo, za njega to mena logike zato sto drugacije pise u svetim knjigama, tesko s takvim ljudima komunicirati i davidati validne argumente jer ce se takva osoba vazda izvalciti na BOGA jer je to jednini validini argument.
Aoida .... "Ukoliko postoji neki drugi vid zivota sem naseg koji je ujedno i daleko napredniji od nas....u sta oni vjeruju?"
Smrle...... sta bi bilo kad bi bilo ...................................
Aoida .... "Ukoliko postoji neki drugi vid zivota sem naseg koji je ujedno i daleko napredniji od nas....u sta oni vjeruju?"
Smrle...... sta bi bilo kad bi bilo ...................................