Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
(Zasto ljudski embrio od par sedmica ima plovne kozice medju prstima i rep?)
Ne sumnjam da odgovor lezi u literaturi koju preferirate!?!?!?!?!
022:005. O ljudi, kako možete sumnjati u oživljenje - pa,Mi vas stvaramo od zemlje, zatim od kapi sjemena, potom od ugruška, zatim od grude mesa vidljivih i nevidljivih udova, pa vam pokažemo moć Našu! A u materice smještamo šta hoćemo, do roka određenog, zatim činimo da se kao dojenčad rađate i da poslije do muževnog doba uzrastate; jedni od vas umiru, a drugi duboku starost doživljavaju, pa začas zaboravljaju ono što saznaju. I ti vidiš zemlju kako je zamrla, ali kad na nju kišu spustimo, ona ustrepće i uzbuja, i iz nje iznikne svakovrsno bilje prekrasno
Ova mjesto u Kur ´anu opisuje detaljno, i u skladu sa najnovijim saznanjima medicine, razvoj čovjeka u materici majke. Prije 1400 godina ovi biološki procesi nisu bili poznati ni Muhammedu (s.a.w.s.), niti bilo kojem od ondašnjih ljekara ili naučnika. Zapadni naučnici su tek u 20. vijeku potvrdili ove procese, koje je Kur ´an još prije 14 vijekova detaljno opisao. Pored ovoga, u Kur ´anu postoje i drugi primjeri u kojima se opisuju prirodni fenomeni.
Kur ´an je, za razliku od ostalih Božijih objava, ostao pošteđen od mijenjanja i krivotvorenja, zato što je odmah bio zapisivan. Sure, koje su nakon objavljivanja pod kontrolom Poslanika (s.a.w.s.) bile zabilježene, sabrane su za doba Ebu Bekra, prvog halife, u jednu knjigu. Za vrijeme trećeg halife, Osmana Ibn Affana napravljeno je sedam kopija ove knjige, od kojih se dvije još uvijek čuvaju, jedna u Topkapi muzeju u Istanbulu a druga u Samarkandu.
Haqqani,
to je vec nesto!
Imamo debatu.
Dobro, dao si svoj argument koji ne zadovoljava moja ocekivanja, al’ nema veze.
Kazes tek u 20 stoljecu su naucnici nesto spoznali o zacecu i intrauterarnom zivotu zametka. E vidis, to nije tacno. Da ne kopam po knjigama i trazim grcke filozofe koji su, istina skromne, ali ipak imali spoznaje o zacecu i ljudskom embriju, samo cu da navedem Leonarda Da Vincia. Koliko znamo, jednom od najvecih genija covjecanstva. Isao je cak i dotle da je potkupljivao grobare da mu iskopavaju svjeze pokopane leseve i secirao ih da bi sto preciznije izucio anatomiju. Al’ haj’ nejse.
Znaci, tvoj argument je da ljudi prije 1450 i nesto godina nisu imali, ama bas nikakvog pojma o tome kako mali zametak raste u trbuhu. Ne bih se sa tim slozio. Dajem ti spontani pobacaj kao argument! Nismo mi u to vrijeme bili debili. Znali smo dosta stvari, civilizacija je egzistirala vec preko 5-6 hiljda godina. Pa arapi su u Evropu donijeli svoja znanja o astronomiji, medicini, matematici, koju su poznavali prije 1450 i vise godina! Nije svijet u to doba bio glup kao sto proizilazi iz tvog posta.
Kao sto navedoh u gore postiranom tekstu imam jedan ultimativno zanimljiv tekst i pravo mi je stalo ga postirati ali pod jednim uslovom, da ga procitas! Na engleskom je pa mi javi ako ti je problem da prevedem najbitnije dijelove.
Eto, pozdrav…
Haqqani wrote: Mi vas stvaramo od zemlje, zatim od kapi sjemena, potom od ugruška, zatim od grude mesa vidljivih i nevidljivih udova,
Mene samo interesuje ko su "Mi" u ovom citatu? Bog sebi govori "mi"?
To smo vec apsolvirali, A, nisi pazila na casu
Mene interesuje, Haqqani, da malo pojasnis ako mozes vezu ovoga citata i razvoja embrija. Kazes da ovo dokazuje znanje o razvijanju embrija, ali ne skontah na koji nacin. Kakve veze ima zemlja?
Hvala!
NIN wrote:Kazes tek u 20 stoljecu su naucnici nesto spoznali o zacecu i intrauterarnom zivotu zametka. E vidis, to nije tacno. Da ne kopam po knjigama i trazim grcke filozofe koji su, istina skromne, ali ipak imali spoznaje o zacecu i ljudskom embriju, samo cu da navedem Leonarda Da Vincia. Koliko znamo, jednom od najvecih genija covjecanstva. Isao je cak i dotle da je potkupljivao grobare da mu iskopavaju svjeze pokopane leseve i secirao ih da bi sto preciznije izucio anatomiju. Al’ haj’ nejse.
Znaci, tvoj argument je da ljudi prije 1450 i nesto godina nisu imali, ama bas nikakvog pojma o tome kako mali zametak raste u trbuhu. Ne bih se sa tim slozio. Dajem ti spontani pobacaj kao argument! Nismo mi u to vrijeme bili debili. Znali smo dosta stvari, civilizacija je egzistirala vec preko 5-6 hiljda godina. Pa arapi su u Evropu donijeli svoja znanja o astronomiji, medicini, matematici, koju su poznavali prije 1450 i vise godina! Nije svijet u to doba bio glup kao sto proizilazi iz tvog posta.
Arapi si bili nepismeni u dobroj mjeri prije pojave islama, u tolikoj da nisu imali ni jedne knjige na arapskom jeziku. Sam Muhamed a.s. je bio nepismen i izolovan u pustinji. Teza da je ove informacije pokupio od razvijenih civilizacija koje si imale mix istine ali i zabluda ne stoji jer bi se i te zablude nalazile u Kur'anu.
A wrote:Pa ja i dalje nisam bila na casu, moze li neko da mi napomene? Zaista ne kontam to "mi".
Ne kontam ni ja, ali odgovor na tvoje pitanje "da li Bog sam sebi govori mi" je DA. I tacka. Cudni su putevi gospodnji, nemamo kompletnu sliku stvari u nasoj skucenosti i tako to...
022:005. O ljudi, kako možete sumnjati u oživljenje - pa,Mi vas stvaramo od zemlje, zatim od kapi sjemena, potom od ugruška, zatim od grude mesa vidljivih i nevidljivih udova, pa vam pokažemo moć Našu! A u materice smještamo šta hoćemo, do roka određenog, zatim činimo da se kao dojenčad rađate i da poslije do muževnog doba uzrastate; jedni od vas umiru, a drugi duboku starost doživljavaju, pa začas zaboravljaju ono što saznaju. I ti vidiš zemlju kako je zamrla, ali kad na nju kišu spustimo, ona ustrepće i uzbuja, i iz nje iznikne svakovrsno bilje prekrasno
Ova mjesto u Kur ´anu opisuje detaljno, i u skladu sa najnovijim saznanjima medicine, razvoj čovjeka u materici majke. Prije 1400 godina ovi biološki procesi nisu bili poznati ni Muhammedu (s.a.w.s.), niti bilo kojem od ondašnjih ljekara ili naučnika. Zapadni naučnici su tek u 20. vijeku potvrdili ove procese, koje je Kur ´an još prije 14 vijekova detaljno opisao. Pored ovoga, u Kur ´anu postoje i drugi primjeri u kojima se opisuju prirodni fenomeni.
Mislim da ovo moze biti zanimljiva diskusija, ali sumnjam da vodi bilo cemu jer vi sa RAZLICITIM skupovima aksioma tesko mozete doci do ISTOG logicnog zakljucka.
Ali to nema veze... Mene ovdje zanima GDJE je taj opis "detaljan, i u skladu sa najnovijim saznanjima medicine, razvoj čovjeka u materici majke"??? Stao u pola recenice? Samo ovo boldirano ili ima nastavak?
Sta covjek treba znati da bi napisao ovo gore navedeno?
- Da zna pisati,
- Da mora doci do seksa da bi se doslo do bebe,
- Da se beba razvija u materici (majke, ne oca!),
- Da je covjek prvo mlad pa onda ostari (u slucaju da ostari),
- Da je star covjek senilan,
- Da trava raste kad padne kisa.
Ne bih da sam neskroman, ali ja sam otprilike ovu koncepciju imao jos pocetkom osnovnog obrazovanja...
A ako vec sve ovo onda niko nije znao, koja je bila svrha pisanja? Jer to "ocigledno" nije niko naucio sve do danas, a sada kada jeste, nije citajuci ovaj tekst.
Za vrijeme od 40 dana svi tjelesni organi u potpunosti se formiraju slijedeći izvjestan red. Poslanik Muhammed a.s. u jednom hadisu kaže: “Svaki od vas u utrobama vaših majki biva razvijen u toku 40 dana.” (Sahih Muslim, Buharija).
U drugom hadisu Poslanik Muhammed a.s. kaže: “Kad prođe 42 noći kapljice (nutfa), Allah joj šalje meleka, koji je oblikuje i načini joj: oči, uši, kožu, meso i kosti. Zatim kaže: “O Gospodaru, je li muško, ili žensko.” I Gospodar vaš odredi, što želi.” (Sahih Muslim).
Ajet 23:14 dijeli embrionalni razvoj u četiri faze.
Prva faza počinje nakon oplođenja, a karakterizirana je strukturom nalik na pihavicu (alek), koji pokazuje kako se jajašce usadi u uterus. Drugo značenje riječi “alek” jeste zakvačak (ono što se pripije i visi). Stvarna veličina embrija u “aleka” fazi (starost oko 15 dana) je oko 0,6 mm. Kada se embrio u ovoj fazi pogleda, on ima lik sažvakane gume.
Takođe se vidi da “aleka” u ovoj prelaznoj fazi u svom vanjskom izgledu sa svojim kesicama nalikuje krvnom ugrušku. Ovo je zbog prisustva relativno velike količine krvi u embriju u ovoj fazi.
Krv u embriju ne počinje cirkulirati do kraja treće sedmice.
Druga faza razvoja opisuje embrio koji se razvija u “mudga”, što označava nešto nalik na sažvakanu stvar (posebno liči na meso). Embrio u “mudga” fazi dobija izgled sažvakane materije jer on na sebi ima linije, koje nalikuju na otiske zuba pri žvakanju.
Ovaj naizgled grub opis je u stvari posve tačan: nakon što se oplođeno jajašce ugnijezdi u matericu, ono počinje da prima prve hranjive tvari i energiju od svoje majke. U skladu s tim ono brzo počinje da raste, nakon sedmice ili dvije ono izgleda kao naborani komad mesa. Ovaj efekt dobiva se zbog razvoja malih pupoljaka, ili izbočina, koje će kasnije izrasti u kompletene organe i udove.
Slijedeće dvije faze opisane u ajetu (23:14) govore o kostima nastalim od “mudga”, nakon čega slijedi obavijanje kostiju mesom i mišićima. Ako slijedimo napredak embrija vlastitim okom, uočit ćemo da poslije prosječno četiri sedmice počinje proces tzv. diferencijacije, gdje se grupe ćelija u embriju transformišu, da bi formirale veće organe. Jedna od struktura, koja se najprije razvija u ovoj fazi, jeste hrskavičasta osnova ljudskog kostura.
Potom slijedi pojava drugih organa uključujući uši, oči, bubrege, srce, itd. Pri tome se održava redoslijed opisan u Kur’anu. Ajet 23:14 završava se rastom organizma u utrobi, nakon čega slijedi rođenje. Ajet 22:5 dodaje još jedan detalj o embriju. U ovom ajetu “mudga” se kvalificira frazom “djelimično formiran i djelomično neformiran.”
Kao što se vidi iz gornjih naznaka naša moderna posmatranja embrionalnog razvoja, otkrila su kako se različite strukture i organi razvijaju jedan za drugim kroz diferencijaciju.
Kur’an spominje da postoje barijere među morima koja se susreću.
“Pustio je mora dva - susreću se,
Između njih je berzeh, ne prelaze (ga).”
(Kur’an, 55:19-20)
Ali, kada Kur’an govori o vododjelnici između slatke i slane vode, on spominje postojanje “zabranjene brane”. Bog kaže u Kur’anu:
“I On je Taj koji je pustio dva mora: ovo pitko, slatko, a ovo slano, gorko; i načinio je između njih dvoje berzeh i prepreku nesavladivu.” (Kur’an, 25:53)
Čovjek se može upitati zašto Kur’an spominje podjelu kad govori o prepreci između slatke i slane vode, a ne spominje je kada govori prepreci između dva mora?
Tradicionalno za ove ajete postoje dva tumačenja. Kur’an navodi da postoji barijera između mora, značeći da će ta barijera spriječiti mora da pređu jedno u drugo, ili da preplave jedno drugo. Zastupnici drugog mišljenja se pitaju kako može postojati barijera između mora, a da jedno ne prelazi u drugo, jer ajet pokazuje da se mora susreću? Oni su zaključili da se mora ne susreću i potražili su drugo značenje izraza “meredže.” Međutim, moderna nauka nam sada pruža dovoljno informacija o ovom pitanju.
Savremena nauka je otkrila da u zonama, gdje se susreću dva različita mora, da između njih postoji barijera. Ta barijera dijeli dva mora tako da svako od njih ima različitu temperaturu, slanost i gustoću. Npr. voda Mediterana je topla, slana i manje gusta u odnosu na vodu Atlanskog okeana. Kada mediteranska voda uđe u Atlanski okean preko Gibraltarske međe, ona se kreće nekoliko stotina kilometara u Atlantik na dubini oko 1000 m noseći svoje karakteristike. Na ovoj dubini voda Mediterana se stabilizira. Mada postoje veliki talasi, jake struje i plime u tim morima, vode se ne miješaju, niti prelaze ovu barijeru.
Moderna nauka je otkrila da je na ušćima, gdje se susreću slatka i slana voda, situacija nešto drugačija od one kada se susreću dva mora. Otkriveno je da ono što razlikuje slatku vodu od slane u ušćima jeste “pycnocline zona sa naznačenim diskontinuitetom gustoće razdvajanja dvaju slojeva”. Ova podjela (zona separacije) ima drugačiji salinitet i od slatke i od slane vode.
Ovi podaci su ne tako davno utvrđeni korištenjem napredne opreme za mjerenje temperature, saliniteta, gustoće, itd. Ljudsko oko ne može vidjeti razliku između dva mora koja se dodiruju, naprotiv, nama se oba mora čine kao jedno homogeno more. Isto tako ljudsko oko ne može vidjeti podjelu voda na ušćima na tri vrste: svježu vodu, slanu vodu i zonu separacije.
NIN wrote:Kazes tek u 20 stoljecu su naucnici nesto spoznali o zacecu i intrauterarnom zivotu zametka. E vidis, to nije tacno. Da ne kopam po knjigama i trazim grcke filozofe koji su, istina skromne, ali ipak imali spoznaje o zacecu i ljudskom embriju, samo cu da navedem Leonarda Da Vincia. Koliko znamo, jednom od najvecih genija covjecanstva. Isao je cak i dotle da je potkupljivao grobare da mu iskopavaju svjeze pokopane leseve i secirao ih da bi sto preciznije izucio anatomiju. Al’ haj’ nejse.
Znaci, tvoj argument je da ljudi prije 1450 i nesto godina nisu imali, ama bas nikakvog pojma o tome kako mali zametak raste u trbuhu. Ne bih se sa tim slozio. Dajem ti spontani pobacaj kao argument! Nismo mi u to vrijeme bili debili. Znali smo dosta stvari, civilizacija je egzistirala vec preko 5-6 hiljda godina. Pa arapi su u Evropu donijeli svoja znanja o astronomiji, medicini, matematici, koju su poznavali prije 1450 i vise godina! Nije svijet u to doba bio glup kao sto proizilazi iz tvog posta.
Arapi si bili nepismeni u dobroj mjeri prije pojave islama, u tolikoj da nisu imali ni jedne knjige na arapskom jeziku. Sam Muhamed a.s. je bio nepismen i izolovan u pustinji. Teza da je ove informacije pokupio od razvijenih civilizacija koje si imale mix istine ali i zabluda ne stoji jer bi se i te zablude nalazile u Kur'anu.
Profesora sam zamislio kao da je tu kraj mene, i nisam bio uopste razocaran zasto jedan profesor od nauke tako lagano podlegne teistickim ucenjima. Sticajem okolnosti imam dodira sa takvim ljudima pa mi to nije neobicno. Ovaj profesor, ako je ovo sve istina, je u stanju opsesivno-kompulzivne regresije, s obzirom na svoje zvanje (ako mozemo po zanimanju predpostaviti svijest doticnog, sto je u vecini slucajeva moguce). Da je ovaj profesor, ako uopste jest, ovim sto je prikazano u ovom prvom tekstu bio totalno ocaran, s obzirom na njegovo znanje i zvanje, preporucio bih mu posjetu NPs. Bez uvrede, ali ovo sto je navedeno u ovom tekstu je totalna kontaminacija racionalnosti. Da sada ne navodim i dalje objasnjavam kojekakve otiske zuba i ugruske, stvarno nije vrijedno truda. Shvatam borbu shvatanja ali ne shvatam sljepilo. (Mada ima objasnjenje i za to, al' otom-potom). Toliko, pozdrav...
Confiscated from Hunters Monrovia, Liberia, 1989
Like the first image, I found this baby, frightened and confused, in a klix zoo. The zookeeper, a teacher, meant well but was overwhelmed and had little or no funding. Later this zoo was destroyed by civil war and the animals killed and eaten.
A skull of the beluga whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
Procitao sam zasada jedno predavanje - "Begining of time". Veoma zanimljivo , mada nista novo za mene. Sve te stvari sam znao odavno , i prije nego sam se posvetio vjeri sam izucavao tu problematiku. U glavnom ovo izlaganje Mr. Hawkinga u vecini svog sadrzaja , ne dolazi u koliziju s vjerskim nacelima, cak sta vise , jedna druge podupiru , sto je slucaj danas u velikom broju naucnih spoznaja. Sama teorija "pocetka" vremena , kao i pocetka svemira , je dovoljna covjeku da se zapita:" A sta je bilo prije pocetka". Ako je odgovor -NISTA, onda smo taj odgovor davno dobili u Kur`anu:
"010:034. Reci: "Može li ijedno vaše božanstvo stvarati iz ničega, zatim da to ponovo učini?" Reci: "Allah stvara iz ničega, zatim će to ponovo učiniti!" Pa kuda se onda odmećete?"
Nastanak univerzuma-Velika eksplozija
Univerzum je došao u postojanje milijardama godina ranije u strahovitoj eksploziji nazvanoj “Big Bang.” U Kur’anu je to izraženo ovako:
“Zar oni koji ne vjeruju ne vide da su nebesa i Zemlja bili zatvorena (cjelina), pa smo ih rastrgali. ........ Pa zar neće vjerovati?” (Kur’an, 21:30)
Otkriće velike eksplozije i porijekla života u vodi načinili su nemuslimani (“oni koji ne vjeruju”). U početku je sva materija i prostor (nebesa) bila jedna cjelina (jedan komad). Zatim je sve to rastavljeno pomoću onoga što fizičari opisuju kao “Veliki prasak.” Dokazi o velikom prasku su toliki, da se on više ne smatra teorijom, nego činjenicom.
Kur’an daje tačan vizuelni opis teorije “Big bang” o stvaranju kosmosa. To je tačno onako, kako “nevjernički” naučnici zamišljaju stvaranje univerzuma iz jednog komada, koji je potom pomoću “Big banga” pretvoren u mnoštvo segmenata. Kako možemo objasniti ovu informaciju u Kur’anu, ukoliko on ne bi bio to što tvrdi da jeste, riječ Sveznajućega Tvorca?
Velika eksplozija je rezultirala iz ekstremno gustog singulariteta. U stvaranju univerzuma blisko su vezani materija, prostor i vrijeme. Materija i prostor bili su spojeni kao jedno, a rastavljeni su eksplozijom.
Svi podaci, danas dostupni, ukazuju na eksplozivno porijeklo univerzuma, koje je u postojanje dovelo i prostor i vrijeme. Ovo se upravo odnosi na “Big bang”. Teorija “Big bang” koja je uspješno preuzela mjesto teorije o stacionarnom stanju, razvijena je od strane dvojice naučnika neovisno jednog od drugog 1920. godine (ruski meteorolog Aleksandar Fridman i belgijski matematičar Georges Lemaitre).
Zašto većina naučnika prihvata teoriju “Velikoga praska”? Prihvatanje ove teorije od strane naučne zajednice utemeljeno je na brojnim opservacijama. Te opservacije potvrđuju specifična predviđanja ove teorije. Znamo da naučnici testiraju svoje teorije putem dedukcije i falsifikacije.
Predviđanja vezana za “Big-bang” teoriju i testovi vezani za ovo jesu:
1. Ako se dogodila velika eksplozija, svi objekti u univerzumu bi trebalo da se udaljavaju jedni od drugih. 1929. godine Edvin Habl je dokazao da se galaksije u univerzumu doista udaljavaju jedna od druge.
2. Velika eksplozija bi trebala iza sebe ostaviti “odsjaj.” 1960. godine naučnici su otkrili postojanje pozadinskog kosmičkog zračenja, tzv. “odsjaj” nakon Velike eksplozije. Naša najtačnija mjerenja ove kosmičke radijacije dobili smo u novembru 1989. od satelita COBE (istraživač kosmičkog pozadinskog zračenja). Mjerenja sa ovoga satelita testirala su važna predviđanja “Big-bang” teorije. Ovo predviđanje sugestira da je inicijalna eksplozija, koja je dala rođenje univerzum, trebala stvoriti radijaciju sa spektrom koji slijedi krivulju crnog tijela. Mjerenja satelita COBE pokazuju da spektar kosmičke radijacije varira u odnosu na krivu crnog tijela samo 1%. Ovaj nivo greške smatra se beznačajnim.
3. Ako je univerzum počeo Velikom eksplzijom, ekstremne temperature trebale su uzrokovati da 25% mase univerzuma postane helijum. To je upravo ono, što je posmatranjem ustanovljeno.
4. Materija u univerzumu bi trebala biti homogeno distribuirana. Astronomska posmatranja sa Hablovog teleskopa pokazuju da je materija u univerzumu općenito homogeno raspoređena.
5. Kako će univerzum završiti? Kosmolozi predviđaju dva moguća kraja univerzuma. Ukoliko je univerzum beskonačan, ili mu nema kraja, trebao bi se vječno širiti. Univerzum, koji je konačan ili zatvoren, trebao bi kolapsirati, kada širenje prestane zbog gravitacije. Kolaps univerzuma završava se kada se sva materija i energija komprimira u visoko energetsko, super gusto stanje, iz kojeg je počeo. Ovaj scenario se naziva “Veliki grč.” Neki teoretičari špekulišu da bi veliki grč mogao proizvesti novu veliku eksploziju, čime bi počeo novi proces širenja univerzuma. Ovakva predviđanja imaju naziv “Teorija oscilirajućeg univerzuma.”
Singularitet crnih rupa:
Ušice igle.Nakon otkrića crnih rupa naučnici su smatrali da mora postojati neko centralno mjesto gdje je gravitacija maksimalna. Zatim su konstatovali da crne rupe eventualno kolapsiraju na zapreminu veličine nula, beskonačne gustoće, kreirajući ono što je poznato kao “singularitet”. Kako se gustoća povećava, putanja svjetlosnih zraka emitovanih sa zvijezde se iskrivljuje i eventualno nepovratno omotava oko nje. Prostor se probada u “singularitetu” u kojem nema vremena!
Prema nekim učenjacima kontakt sa drugim univerzumima počinje ovdje! Oni misle da moraju postojati drugi univerzumi, ali su fizički zakoni u njima drugačiji od naših. Nema privlačenja, nema brzine svjetlosti i nema vremena u drugim univerzumima.
Naučnici kažu da je veličina singulariteta kao iglene uši. U Kur’anu postoji ajet koji se dotiče ovog predmeta i on glasi:
“Uistinu, oni koji budu poricali ajete Naše i oholili se prema njima, neće im se otvoriti kapije neba i neće ući u Džennet, dok ne prođe deva kroz ušice igle; a tako plaćamo prestupnike.” (Kur’an, 7:40)
Horizont događaja je područje gdje sila gravitacije postaje tako snažna da čak i svjetlost biva uvučena u crnu rupu. Mada je horizont događaja dio crne rupe, on nije opipljiv objekt. Ako biste padali u crnu rupu, bilo bi nemoguće da spoznate trenutak kad dodirujete horizont događaja.
Singularitet nije uopće shvatljiv objekat. Prema općoj teoriji relativiteta singularitet je tačka beskrajne zakrivljenosti prostora i vremena. Ovo znači da je sila gravitacije postala beskonačno jaka u centru crne rupe. Sve što pada u crnu rupu prolazeći kroz horizont događaja, uključujući i svjetlost, stići će u singularitet crne rupe. Prije nego što nešto stigne u singularitet, ono biva rastrgano od intenzivnih gravitacionih sila. Čak i sami atomi bivaju rastrgani od gravitacionih sila.
Šest dana ili šest perioda stvaranja
Danas znamo da se proces stvaranja mjeri u milijardama godina. Urednici Biblije ovo nisu mogli znati. U njihovoj žudnji da sabat nametnu i drugima oni su napisali da se Bog odmorio na dan prvog sabata nakon što je završio svoj rad na stvaranju nebesa i Zemlje.
Šest dana stvaranja u knjizi “Postanak” je kao šest dana bilo kojeg dana u hefti. Za svećeničke urednike Biblije pod danom se podrazumijevao period od jednog zalaska Sunca do drugog. Šest dana je označavalo od nedjelje do petka. Oni su vjerovali da je razlog što je sabat postao sveti dan, što je Bog na taj dan “otpočinuo.” Tako nam ti editori kažu:
“Na sedmi dan Bog je završio posao, kojim se bavio, tako da se On na sedmi dan odmorio od svoga posla. I Bog blagoslovi sedmi dan i učini ga svetim, jer se On od sveg svoga posla stvaranja odmorio na taj dan.” (Postanak, 2:2) Kao da ovo nije bilo dovoljno, editori su došli na ideju da se Bog i dalje odmarao, kada su oni napisali: “Za šest dana Gospod stvori nebesa i Zemlju, a sedmog dana je On otpočinuo i osvježio se.” (Biblija, verzija kralja Džejmsa, Izlazak 31:17)
Ideja da se Bog odmara kao ljudi i osvježava kao ljudi morala je biti korigovana od strane Isusa, kada on, prema Ivanu, izjavljuje da Bog neprestano radi, čak i na dan sabata. (Vidi: Ivan, 5:16).
Bog je razjasnio stvari sopstvenim riječima kada je u Kur’anu objavio:
“I zaista smo stvorili nebesa i Zemlju i šta je među njima u šest dana, i nije Nas dotakao nikakav umor.” (Kur’an, 50:38)
Gornji kur’anski ajet jasno odbacuje tvrdnju da se Bog odmarao. Bog se, prema Kur’anu, ne umara
“Ne obuzima Ga drijemež, niti san.” (Kur’an, 2:255)
A šta je sa periodom stvaranja? Zar i u Kur’anu nije također šest dana? U gornjim citatima izraz preveden kao dani može označavati, ne samo dane, nego duge periode vremana i nedefinisane periode vremena (koji su uvijek dugi).
Kur’an takođe govori o:
“Upravlja stvar od neba ka Zemlji, zatim se uspinje Njemu u danu čija je mjera hiljadu godina od onog šta računate.” (Kur’an, 32:5)
“Penju se meleci i Duh Njemu, u danu čija je mjera pedeset hiljada godina.” (Kur’an, 70:4)
Dugo vremena prije modernih ideja o dužini vremena stvaranja, komentatori Kur’ana su shvatali, kad Kur’an govori o šest dana stvaranja, da to ne znači šest naših dana, nego da je to šest perioda.
Ponovo, dakle, vidimo da je Kur’an izbjegao ponoviti grešku, koja je data u prethodnoj knjizi, grešku koja nije otkrivena do našeg vremena. Imajući ovo u vidu, zar neko može insistirati na tome da je Kur’an djelo čovjeka?
Subatomski svijet
Mnogo stoljeća prije poslanstva Muhammeda a.s. postojala je dobro poznata teorija atomizma koju je lansirao grčki filozof Demokrit. On i ljudi koji su došli poslije njega smatrali su da se materija sastoji od sićušnih neuništivih i nedjeljivih čestica, koji se zovu atomi. Arapi su se takođe bavili istim konceptom, ustvari, arapska riječ zerra odnosila se na najmanju česticu poznatu čovjeku.
Sada je moderna nauka otkrila da se ova najmanja jedinica materije (tj. atomi koji imaju iste karakteristike kao njegovi elementi) može razbiti na sastavne komponente. Ovo je nova ideja, razvoj posljednjeg stoljeća, a ipak ova informacija je već bila dokumentirana u Kur’anu, koji kaže:
“A oni koji ne vjeruju govore: “Neće nam doći Čas.” Reci: “Svakako, i tako mi Gospodara mog, sigurno vam dolazi.” - Znalca nevidljivog! Ne izmiče od Njega težina atoma u nebesima, niti u Zemlji, ni sitnije od toga, niti krupnije, a da nije u Knjizi jasnoj.” (Kur’an, 34:3)
Nesumnjivo, prije 14 stoljeća ovakva izjava izgledala bi neuobičajena i za jednog Arapa.
Atom nekog elementa je najprostija čestica koja odražava osobine elementa. Atomska teorija ima četiri pretpostavke: atomi sačinjavaju materiju. Neku vrstu moderne teorije postavio je engleski učitelj Džon Dalton 1808. godine. Ova Daltonova teorija je opisala interakcije atoma, ali nije razmatrala mogućnost postojanja subatomskih čestica. Prva subatomska čestica, negativno naelektrisani elektron, otkrivena je 1899. godine. Moderni pogled na atom pretpostavlja da on ima tri subatomske čestice.
Danas su naučnici unutar atoma identificirali mnoge druge čestice, ali se tri proste subatomske čestice, elektron, proton i neutron, još uvijek koriste za objašnjenje karakteristika atoma. Otkriveno je više od 200 subatomskih čestica, od kojih mnoge nisu fundamentalne, nego su sastavljene od drugih prostijih čestica. Npr. Rutherford je pokazao da se atom sastoji od jezgra i orbitirajućih elektrona. Kasnije su fizičari pokazali da se nukleus sastoji od neutrona i protona. Kasnije se ustanovilo da se protoni i neutroni sastoje od kvarkova.
Neke od subatomskih čestica su: elektron, pozitron, elektron antineutrino, negativni muon, muon, muon neutrino, muon antineutrino, negativni tau, pozitivni tau, tau neutrino, tau antineutrino.
Jedanaest planeta.
Sastojeći se od Sunca, devet poznatih planeta, 67 satelita (mjeseci), miliona asteroida i milijardi kometa, naš Sunčev sistem je oaza svjetla, toplote i života.
Unutrašnji Sunčev sistem sastoji se od Sunca, Merkura, Venere, Zemlje i Marsa.
Planete vanjskog Sunčevog sistema su: Jupiter, Saturn, Uran, Neptun i Pluton.
“Kad reče Jusuf ocu svom: ’O oče moj! Uistinu sam ja vidio jedanaest planeta i Sunce i Mjesec. Vidio sam ih sebi potčinjene.” (Kur’an, 12:4)
Šta je sa desetom i jedanaestom planetom?
Astronomi su pronašli nagovještaj masivnog, dalekog, još neviđenog objekta na ivici Sunčevog sistema - možda deseti planet - koji izgleda da otiskuje komete prema unutrašnjem Sunčevom sistemu iz orbite udaljene tri triliona milja.
Dva tima učenjaka - jedan iz Engleske, a drugi sa Univerziteta Lafajet u Luizijani - nezavisno su došli do ovakvog zaključka, zasnovanog na jako eliptičnim orbitama tzv. dugoperiodičnih kometa, koje potiču od ledenog oblaka krhotina daleko, daleko iza Plutona.
Procjenjuje se da bi taj planet mogao imati masu između jednoga i deset Jupitera. Kako on orbitira, gravitaciono djelovanje remeti ledene krhotine vanjskog Sunčevog sistema, prouzrokujući da se neke od njih zalete prema Suncu kao komete.
Još niko nije direktno vidio deseti planet. Ono što iznenađuje jeste da postojeći planet orbitira na udaljenosti tri triliona milja - pola svjetlosne godine od Sunca. Nama najbliža zvijezda je daleko 4 svjetlosne godine.
Na tako velikoj udaljenosti deseti planet je previše nejasan da bi se vidio sadašnjim teleskopima, mada za to postoji nada. Naredna generacija infra-crvenih teleskopa će možda moći da ga registruje.
Last edited by Haqqani on 14/03/2006 11:23, edited 2 times in total.
People (and apes) have chests that are broader than they are deep, with the shoulder blades flat in back. This is because we, like apes, are descended from an ancestor who was able to suspend itself using the upper limbs. On the other hand, monkeys and other quadrupeds have a different form of locomotion. Quadrupeds have narrow, deep chests with shoulder blades on the sides.
Budući da su fosili obično neuređeni i nekompletni, bilo koja pretpostavka bazirana na njima je vjerovatno potpuno spekulativna. Ustvari, rekonstrukcije (crteži ili modeli) bazirane na fosilnim ostacima od strane evolucionista smišljeno su precizno pripremljene samo da bi potvrdile evolucione teze. Jedan antropolog sa Harwarda, David R. Pillbeam, naglašava ovu činjenicu kada kaže: "U najmanju ruku, u paleoantropologiji podaci su još uvijek oskudni i manjkavi tako da teorija veoma mnogo utiče na interpretacije. U prošlosti, teorije su jasno odražavale naše trenutne ideologije umjesto stvarne podatke."1 Budući da su ljudi visoko impresionirani vizualnim informacijama, ove rekonstrukcije veoma dobro služe ciljevima evolucionista, a to je da ubijede ljude da su ova rekonstruirana bića stvarno postojala u prošlosti.
1David R. Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree", Nature, June 1978, p. 40
Ustvari, evolucionisti su izmislili tako "besmislene priče" da oni čak pripisuju različita lica jednoj te istoj lobanji. Tri različito rekonstruirana crteža načinjena za fosil nazvan Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus) čuveni su primjer takvog falsificiranja.
Pristrasna interpretacija fosila ili fabriciranje mnogih imaginarnih rekonstrukcija su pokazatelj kako često evolucionisti pribjegavaju trikovima. A ipak, to izgleda nevino kada se uporedi sa namjernim falsifikatima koji su bili izvršeni u historiji evolucije.
"Pokušati restaurirati mehke dijelove je jedan čak još hazardniji poduhvat. Usne, oči, uši i nagib nosa ne ostavljaju indicija na dijelovima kosti koji leže ispod njih. Vi sa jednakom lahkoćom na neandertaloidnoj lobanji možete modelirati osobine šimpanze kao i crte lica filozofa."
"Pokušati restaurirati mehke dijelove je jedan čak još hazardniji poduhvat. Usne, oči, uši i nagib nosa ne ostavljaju indicija na dijelovima kosti koji leže ispod njih. Vi sa jednakom lahkoćom na neandertaloidnoj lobanji možete modelirati osobine šimpanze kao i crte lica filozofa."
Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New York: McMillan, 1931, p. 332.
Procitao sam i to drugo predavanje o postanku zivota. Zalosno je da jedan "Veliki naucnik" , jos uvijek podrzava teoriju evolucije :(
THE MOLECULAR IMPASSE OF EVOLUTION
In previous sections of this book, we have related how the fossil record invalidates the theory of evolution. In point of fact we need not have related any of that, because the theory of evolution collapses long before one gets to any claims about the "evolution of species" and the evidence of fossils. The subject that renders the theory meaningless from the very outset is the question of how life first appeared on earth.
When it addresses this question, evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to the scenario, four billion years ago various inorganic chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial earth atmosphere in which the effects of thunderbolts and pressure caused them to form the first living cell.
The first thing that must be said is that the claim that inorganic materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that is not verified by any experiment or observation so far. Life only generates from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inorganic materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.
The theory of evolution claims that the cell of a living being, which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought to bear nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial earth conditions. In the following pages, we will examine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science and reason.
Can Life Result from Coincidences as Evolution Argues?
The theory of evolution holds that life started with a cell that formed by chance under primitive earth conditions. Let us therefore examine the composition of the cell with simple comparisons in order to show how irrational it is to ascribe the existence of the cell - a structure which still maintains its mystery in many respects, even at a time when we have just set foot in the 21st century - to natural phenomena and coincidences.
With all its operational systems, systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than any city. It contains power stations producing the energy consumed by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down imported raw materials into their usable parts, and specialised cell membrane proteins for the control of incoming and outgoing materials. These constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.
With all its operational systems, systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than any city.
Far from being formed under primitive earth conditions, the cell, which in its composition and mechanisms is so complex, cannot be synthesised in even the most sophisticated laboratories of our day. Even with the use of amino acids, the building blocks of the cell, it is not possible to produce so much as a single organelle of the cell, such as mitochondria or ribosome, much less a whole cell. The first cell claimed to have been produced by evolutionary coincidence is as much a figment of the imagination and a product of fantasy as the unicorn.
The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in one of his interviews published in Nature magazine dated November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle expressed that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.53 This means that it is not possible for the cell to come into being by coincidence and therefore, it definitely should have been "created".
Proteins Challenge Coincidence
And it is not just the cell that cannot be produced: the formation, under natural conditions, of even a single protein of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up a cell is impossible.
Proteins are giant molecules consisting of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These molecules constitute the building blocks of a living cell. The simplest is composed of 50 amino acids; but there are some proteins that are composed of thousands of amino acids. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein in living cells, each of which has a particular function, causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Incapable of demonstrating the "accidental formation" of amino acids, the theory of evolution founders on the point of the formation of proteins.
Computer simulations of two different complex protein molecules that are vital for life. On the left is the protein of "acetylcholinesterase" that functions with the acetylcholine enzyme supplying the electrical transmission between nerves. When this protein is deficient, the nerve system cannot function and the organism dies. On the right is another protein molecule called "acetylcoabinding".
We can easily demonstrate, with simple probability calculations anybody can understand, that the functional structure of proteins can by no means come about by chance.
There are twenty different amino acids. If we consider that an average-sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids, there are 10300 different combinations of acids. Of all of these possible sequences, only "one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things. In other words, the probability of the coincidental formation of only one protein molecule cited above is "1 in 10300". The probability of this "1" occurring out of an "astronomical" number consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros is for all practical purposes zero; it is impossible. Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate.
The same fact is confessed by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a famous evolutionist scientist states that "the spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."54
Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place within a very long period of time and that this long period made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History writing that this chance is so small "that it (protein) would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."55
So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers this question:
When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.56
If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, a cell is at no time composed of a mere protein heap. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals like electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, harmony, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of them functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.
Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacteria (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 1040000.57 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros next to 1)
A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.58
Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:
Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.59
The reason Hoyle used the term "psychological" is the self-conditioning of evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created. These people have determined the rejection of Allah's existence as their main target. For this reason alone, they go on defending unreasonable scenarios which they also acknowledge to be impossible.
The Failure of Evolutionary Scenarios on the Origin of Life
The theory of evolution faces no greater crisis than on the point of explaining the emergence of life. The reason is that organic molecules are so complex that their origin cannot possibly be explained as being coincidental and it is manifestly impossible for an organic cell to have been formed by chance.
Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities of the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life, which was published in 1936:
Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory.60
Since Oparin, evolutionists have performed countless experiments, conducted research, and made observations to prove that a cell could have been formed by chance. However, every such attempt only made clearer the complex design of the cell and thus refuted the evolutionists' hypotheses even more. Stanley Miller's experiment of 1953 was once regarded as an evidence for evolution in the molecular level, but after the 1970's, the Miller experiment and similar evolutionary studies lost all their credibility due to the findings about the early athmosphere. It was discovered that the early atmosphere was very unsupportive of the formation of organic molecules.
In a 1988 article, Professor Klaus Dose, the president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, stated:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.61
In a 1998 article, a statement came from the the renowned evolutionary geochemist Jeffrey Bada of the San Diego Scripps Institute, which summarized the Darwinist failure on the origin of life:
Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?62
What evolutionists are trying to do is to display that life can randomly arise from non-living matter. But all experiments and research indicate that this is only a fantasy which has no reality in the real world. Evolutionist biologist Andrew Scott admits the same fact:
Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.63
In fact, all studies in the subject point to the same law: Life only comes from life. This simply means that the first life on Earth has been originated by Allah.
The Miraculous Molecule: DNA
The theory of evolution has been unable to provide a coherent explanation for the origin of the molecules that are the basis of the cell. Furthermore, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) have produced brand-new problems for the theory of evolution.
In 1955, the work of two scientists on DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick, launched a new era in biology. Many scientists directed their attention to the science of genetics. Today, after years of research, scientists have largely mapped the structure of DNA.
Here, we need to give some very basic information on the structure and function of DNA:
The molecule called DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan of the human body. Information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA by means of a special coding system. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four special bases that make up this molecule. These bases are specified as A, T, G, and C according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence of these bases. There are approximately 3.5 billion nucleotides, that is, 3.5 billion letters in a DNA molecule.
The DNA data pertaining to a particular organ or protein is included in special components called "genes". For instance, information about the eye exists in a series of special genes, whereas information about the heart exists in quite another series of genes. The cell produces proteins by using the information in all of these genes. Amino acids that constitute the structure of the protein are defined by the sequential arrangement of three nucleotides in the DNA.
At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene would render the gene completely useless. When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to be formed by accident in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on this impossibility by saying:
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.64
The number 41000 is equivalent to 10600. We obtain this number by adding 600 zeros to 1. As 10 with 11 zeros indicates a trillion, a figure with 600 zeros is indeed a number that is difficult to grasp.
Evolutionist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following admission on this issue:
In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are astronomic.65
In addition to all these improbabilities, DNA can barely be involved in a reaction because of its double-chained spiral shape. This also makes it impossible to think that it can be the basis of life.
Moreover, while DNA can replicate only with the help of some enzymes that are actually proteins, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realised only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has to be "created" before the other. American microbiologist Jacobson comments on the subject:
The complete directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth - all had to be simultaneously present at that moment (when life began). This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.66
The quotation above was written two years after the disclosure of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick. Despite all the developments in science, this problem remains unsolved for evolutionists. To sum up, the need for DNA in reproduction, the necessity of the presence of some proteins for reproduction, and the requirement to produce these proteins according to the information in the DNA entirely demolish evolutionist theses.
Two German scientists, Junker and Scherer, explained that the synthesis of each of the molecules required for chemical evolution, necessitates distinct conditions, and that the probability of the compounding of these materials having theoretically very different acquirement methods is zero:
Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis.67
In short, the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutionary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level.
To summarise what we have said so far, neither amino acids nor their products, the proteins making up the cells of living beings, could ever be produced in any so-called "primitive atmosphere" environment. Moreover, factors such as the incredibly complex structure of proteins, their right-hand, left-hand features, and the difficulties in the formation of peptide bonds are just parts of the reason why they will never be produced in any future experiment either.
Even if we suppose for a moment that proteins somehow did form accidentally, that would still have no meaning, for proteins are nothing at all on their own: they cannot themselves reproduce. Protein synthesis is only possible with the information coded in DNA and RNA molecules. Without DNA and RNA, it is impossible for a protein to reproduce. The specific sequence of the twenty different amino acids encoded in DNA determines the structure of each protein in the body. However, as has been made abundantly clear by all those who have studied these molecules, it is impossible for DNA and RNA to form by chance.
The Fact of Creation: Intelligent Design
With the collapse of the theory of evolution in every field, prominent names in the discipline of biochemistry today admit the fact of creation and have begun to defend the view that everything is created by a conscious Creator as part of an exalted creation. This is already a fact that people cannot disregard. Scientists who can approach their work with an open mind have developed a view called "intelligent design". Michael J. Behe, one of the foremost of these scientists, states that he accepts the absolute being of the Creator and describes the impasse of those who deny this fact:
The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats.
But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit laboured. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labelled intelligent design, the other side must be labelled God.68
Today, many people are not even aware that they are in a position of accepting a body of fallacy as truth in the name of science, instead of believing in Allah. Those who do not find the sentence "Allah created you from nothing" scientific enough can believe that the first living being came into being by thunderbolts striking a "primordial soup" billions of years ago.
As we have described elsewhere in this book, the balances in nature are so delicate and so numerous that it is entirely irrational to claim that they developed "by chance". No matter how much those who cannot set themselves free from this irrationality may strive, the signs of Allah in the heavens and the earth are completely obvious and they are undeniable.
Allah is the Creator of the heavens, the earth and all that is in between.
The signs of His being have encompassed the entire universe.
Haqqani, procitao sam tvoj tekst. Jest da je zanimljiv ali nije me uopste ''preveo'' u drugi koncept shvatanja, posto sam na sve izneseno nasao spontao objasnjenje. Evo teksta koji sam nhtio da procitas:
Life in the Universe
In this talk, I would like to speculate a little, on the development of life in the universe, and in particular, the development of intelligent life. I shall take this to include the human race, even though much of its behaviour through out history, has been pretty stupid, and not calculated to aid the survival of the species. Two questions I shall discuss are, 'What is the probability of life existing else where in the universe?' and, 'How may life develop in the future?'
It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. This is what happens in a living being. One can define Life to be an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, and can reproduce itself. That is, it can make similar, but independent, ordered systems. To do these things, the system must convert energy in some ordered form, like food, sunlight, or electric power, into disordered energy, in the form of heat. In this way, the system can satisfy the requirement that the total amount of disorder increases, while, at the same time, increasing the order in itself and its offspring. A living being usually has two elements: a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions. In biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism. But it is worth emphasising that there need be nothing biological about them. For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form, because it contains only instructions or genes, and doesn't have any metabolism of its own. Instead, it reprograms the metabolism of the host computer, or cell. Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life, because they are parasites, and can not exist independently of their hosts. But then most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life. I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on.
What we normally think of as 'life' is based on chains of carbon atoms, with a few other atoms, such as nitrogen or phosphorous. One can speculate that one might have life with some other chemical basis, such as silicon, but carbon seems the most favourable case, because it has the richest chemistry. That carbon atoms should exist at all, with the properties that they have, requires a fine adjustment of physical constants, such as the QCD scale, the electric charge, and even the dimension of space-time. If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn't be asking why it is so finely adjusted. One can apply the Anthropic Principle, in either its Strong, or Weak, versions. For the Strong Anthropic Principle, one supposes that there are many different universes, each with different values of the physical constants. In a small number, the values will allow the existence of objects like carbon atoms, which can act as the building blocks of living systems. Since we must live in one of these universes, we should not be surprised that the physical constants are finely tuned. If they weren't, we wouldn't be here. The strong form of the Anthropic Principle is not very satisfactory. What operational meaning can one give to the existence of all those other universes? And if they are separate from our own universe, how can what happens in them, affect our universe. Instead, I shall adopt what is known as the Weak Anthropic Principle. That is, I shall take the values of the physical constants, as given. But I shall see what conclusions can be drawn, from the fact that life exists on this planet, at this stage in the history of the universe.
There was no carbon, when the universe began in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. It was so hot, that all the matter would have been in the form of particles, called protons and neutrons. There would initially have been equal numbers of protons and neutrons. However, as the universe expanded, it would have cooled. About a minute after the Big Bang, the temperature would have fallen to about a billion degrees, about a hundred times the temperature in the Sun. At this temperature, the neutrons will start to decay into more protons. If this had been all that happened, all the matter in the universe would have ended up as the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of a single proton. However, some of the neutrons collided with protons, and stuck together to form the next simplest element, helium, whose nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. But no heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen, would have been formed in the early universe. It is difficult to imagine that one could build a living system, out of just hydrogen and helium, and anyway the early universe was still far too hot for atoms to combine into molecules.
The universe would have continued to expand, and cool. But some regions would have had slightly higher densities than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra matter in those regions, would slow down their expansion, and eventually stop it. Instead, they would collapse to form galaxies and stars, starting from about two billion years after the Big Bang. Some of the early stars would have been more massive than our Sun. They would have been hotter than the Sun, and would have burnt the original hydrogen and helium, into heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. This could have taken only a few hundred million years. After that, some of the stars would have exploded as supernovas, and scattered the heavy elements back into space, to form the raw material for later generations of stars.
Other stars are too far away, for us to be able to see directly, if they have planets going round them. But certain stars, called pulsars, give off regular pulses of radio waves. We observe a slight variation in the rate of some pulsars, and this is interpreted as indicating that they are being disturbed, by having Earth sized planets going round them. Planets going round pulsars are unlikely to have life, because any living beings would have been killed, in the supernova explosion that led to the star becoming a pulsar. But, the fact that several pulsars are observed to have planets suggests that a reasonable fraction of the hundred billion stars in our galaxy may also have planets. The necessary planetary conditions for our form of life may therefore have existed from about four billion years after the Big Bang.
Our solar system was formed about four and a half billion years ago, or about ten billion years after the Big Bang, from gas contaminated with the remains of earlier stars. The Earth was formed largely out of the heavier elements, including carbon and oxygen. Somehow, some of these atoms came to be arranged in the form of molecules of DNA. This has the famous double helix form, discovered by Crick and Watson, in a hut on the New Museum site in Cambridge. Linking the two chains in the helix, are pairs of nucleic acids. There are four types of nucleic acid, adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thiamine. I'm afraid my speech synthesiser is not very good, at pronouncing their names. Obviously, it was not designed for molecular biologists. An adenine on one chain is always matched with a thiamine on the other chain, and a guanine with a cytosine. Thus the sequence of nucleic acids on one chain defines a unique, complementary sequence, on the other chain. The two chains can then separate and each act as templates to build further chains. Thus DNA molecules can reproduce the genetic information, coded in their sequences of nucleic acids. Sections of the sequence can also be used to make proteins and other chemicals, which can carry out the instructions, coded in the sequence, and assemble the raw material for DNA to reproduce itself.
We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.
One possibility is that the formation of something like DNA, which could reproduce itself, is extremely unlikely. However, in a universe with a very large, or infinite, number of stars, one would expect it to occur in a few stellar systems, but they would be very widely separated. The fact that life happened to occur on Earth, is not however surprising or unlikely. It is just an application of the Weak Anthropic Principle: if life had appeared instead on another planet, we would be asking why it had occurred there.
If the appearance of life on a given planet was very unlikely, one might have expected it to take a long time. More precisely, one might have expected life to appear just in time for the subsequent evolution to intelligent beings, like us, to have occurred before the cut off, provided by the life time of the Sun. This is about ten billion years, after which the Sun will swell up and engulf the Earth. An intelligent form of life, might have mastered space travel, and be able to escape to another star. But otherwise, life on Earth would be doomed.
There is fossil evidence, that there was some form of life on Earth, about three and a half billion years ago. This may have been only 500 million years after the Earth became stable and cool enough, for life to develop. But life could have taken 7 billion years to develop, and still have left time to evolve to beings like us, who could ask about the origin of life. If the probability of life developing on a given planet, is very small, why did it happen on Earth, in about one 14th of the time available.
The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. Maybe there was some simpler form of organisation, which built up DNA. Once DNA appeared, it would have been so successful, that it might have completely replaced the earlier forms. We don't know what these earlier forms would have been. One possibility is RNA. This is like DNA, but rather simpler, and without the double helix structure. Short lengths of RNA, could reproduce themselves like DNA, and might eventually build up to DNA. One can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, let alone RNA. But given 500 million years, and oceans covering most of the Earth, there might be a reasonable probability of RNA, being made by chance.
As DNA reproduced itself, there would have been random errors. Many of these errors would have been harmful, and would have died out. Some would have been neutral. That is they would not have affected the function of the gene. Such errors would contribute to a gradual genetic drift, which seems to occur in all populations. And a few errors would have been favourable to the survival of the species. These would have been chosen by Darwinian natural selection.
The process of biological evolution was very slow at first. It took two and a half billion years, to evolve from the earliest cells to multi-cell animals, and another billion years to evolve through fish and reptiles, to mammals. But then evolution seemed to have speeded up. It only took about a hundred million years, to develop from the early mammals to us. The reason is, fish contain most of the important human organs, and mammals, essentially all of them. All that was required to evolve from early mammals, like lemurs, to humans, was a bit of fine-tuning.
But with the human race, evolution reached a critical stage, comparable in importance with the development of DNA. This was the development of language, and particularly written language. It meant that information can be passed on, from generation to generation, other than genetically, through DNA. There has been no detectable change in human DNA, brought about by biological evolution, in the ten thousand years of recorded history. But the amount of knowledge handed on from generation to generation has grown enormously. The DNA in human beings contains about three billion nucleic acids. However, much of the information coded in this sequence, is redundant, or is inactive. So the total amount of useful information in our genes, is probably something like a hundred million bits. One bit of information is the answer to a yes no question. By contrast, a paper back novel might contain two million bits of information. So a human is equivalent to 50 Mills and Boon romances. A major national library can contain about five million books, or about ten trillion bits. So the amount of information handed down in books, is a hundred thousand times as much as in DNA.
Even more important, is the fact that the information in books, can be changed, and updated, much more rapidly. It has taken us several million years to evolve from the apes. During that time, the useful information in our DNA, has probably changed by only a few million bits. So the rate of biological evolution in humans, is about a bit a year. By contrast, there are about 50,000 new books published in the English language each year, containing of the order of a hundred billion bits of information. Of course, the great majority of this information is garbage, and no use to any form of life. But, even so, the rate at which useful information can be added is millions, if not billions, higher than with DNA.
This has meant that we have entered a new phase of evolution. At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information. But in the last ten thousand years or so, we have been in what might be called, an external transmission phase. In this, the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage, has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes. We may be no stronger, or inherently more intelligent, than our cave man ancestors. But what distinguishes us from them, is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly, over the last three hundred. I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race.
The time scale for evolution, in the external transmission period, is the time scale for accumulation of information. This used to be hundreds, or even thousands, of years. But now this time scale has shrunk to about 50 years, or less. On the other hand, the brains with which we process this information have evolved only on the Darwinian time scale, of hundreds of thousands of years. This is beginning to cause problems. In the 18th century, there was said to be a man who had read every book written. But nowadays, if you read one book a day, it would take you about 15,000 years to read through the books in a national Library. By which time, many more books would have been written.
This has meant that no one person can be the master of more than a small corner of human knowledge. People have to specialise, in narrower and narrower fields. This is likely to be a major limitation in the future. We certainly can not continue, for long, with the exponential rate of growth of knowledge that we have had in the last three hundred years. An even greater limitation and danger for future generations, is that we still have the instincts, and in particular, the aggressive impulses, that we had in cave man days. Aggression, in the form of subjugating or killing other men, and taking their women and food, has had definite survival advantage, up to the present time. But now it could destroy the entire human race, and much of the rest of life on Earth. A nuclear war, is still the most immediate danger, but there are others, such as the release of a genetically engineered virus. Or the green house effect becoming unstable.
There is no time, to wait for Darwinian evolution, to make us more intelligent, and better natured. But we are now entering a new phase, of what might be called, self designed evolution, in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. There is a project now on, to map the entire sequence of human DNA. It will cost a few billion dollars, but that is chicken feed, for a project of this importance. Once we have read the book of life, we will start writing in corrections. At first, these changes will be confined to the repair of genetic defects, like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. These are controlled by single genes, and so are fairly easy to identify, and correct. Other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled by a large number of genes. It will be much more difficult to find them, and work out the relations between them. Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression.
Laws will be passed, against genetic engineering with humans. But some people won't be able to resist the temptation, to improve human characteristics, such as size of memory, resistance to disease, and length of life. Once such super humans appear, there are going to be major political problems, with the unimproved humans, who won't be able to compete. Presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant. Instead, there will be a race of self-designing beings, who are improving themselves at an ever-increasing rate.
If this race manages to redesign itself, to reduce or eliminate the risk of self-destruction, it will probably spread out, and colonise other planets and stars. However, long distance space travel, will be difficult for chemically based life forms, like DNA. The natural lifetime for such beings is short, compared to the travel time. According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. So the round trip to the nearest star would take at least 8 years, and to the centre of the galaxy, about a hundred thousand years. In science fiction, they overcome this difficulty, by space warps, or travel through extra dimensions. But I don't think these will ever be possible, no matter how intelligent life becomes. In the theory of relativity, if one can travel faster than light, one can also travel back in time. This would lead to problems with people going back, and changing the past. One would also expect to have seen large numbers of tourists from the future, curious to look at our quaint, old-fashioned ways.
It might be possible to use genetic engineering, to make DNA based life survive indefinitely, or at least for a hundred thousand years. But an easier way, which is almost within our capabilities already, would be to send machines. These could be designed to last long enough for interstellar travel. When they arrived at a new star, they could land on a suitable planet, and mine material to produce more machines, which could be sent on to yet more stars. These machines would be a new form of life, based on mechanical and electronic components, rather than macromolecules. They could eventually replace DNA based life, just as DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life.
This mechanical life could also be self-designing. Thus it seems that the external transmission period of evolution, will have been just a very short interlude, between the Darwinian phase, and a biological, or mechanical, self design phase. This is shown on this next diagram, which is not to scale, because there's no way one can show a period of ten thousand years, on the same scale as billions of years. How long the self-design phase will last is open to question. It may be unstable, and life may destroy itself, or get into a dead end. If it does not, it should be able to survive the death of the Sun, in about 5 billion years, by moving to planets around other stars. Most stars will have burnt out in another 15 billion years or so, and the universe will be approaching a state of complete disorder, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But Freeman Dyson has shown that, despite this, life could adapt to the ever-decreasing supply of ordered energy, and therefore could, in principle, continue forever.
What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant.
What is the explanation of why we have not been visited? One possibility is that the argument, about the appearance of life on Earth, is wrong. Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened. Another possibility is that there was a reasonable probability of forming self reproducing systems, like cells, but that most of these forms of life did not evolve intelligence. We are used to thinking of intelligent life, as an inevitable consequence of evolution. But the Anthropic Principle should warn us to be wary of such arguments. It is more likely that evolution is a random process, with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value. Bacteria, and other single cell organisms, will live on, if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence, was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution. It took a very long time, two and a half billion years, to go from single cells to multi-cell beings, which are a necessary precursor to intelligence. This is a good fraction of the total time available, before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis, that the probability for life to develop intelligence, is low. In this case, we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy, but we are unlikely to find intelligent life. Another way, in which life could fail to develop to an intelligent stage, would be if an asteroid or comet were to collide with the planet. We have just observed the collision of a comet, Schumacher-Levi, with Jupiter. It produced a series of enormous fireballs. It is thought the collision of a rather smaller body with the Earth, about 70 million years ago, was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. A few small early mammals survived, but anything as large as a human, would have almost certainly been wiped out. It is difficult to say how often such collisions occur, but a reasonable guess might be every twenty million years, on average. If this figure is correct, it would mean that intelligent life on Earth has developed only because of the lucky chance that there have been no major collisions in the last 70 million years. Other planets in the galaxy, on which life has developed, may not have had a long enough collision free period to evolve intelligent beings.
A third possibility is that there is a reasonable probability for life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings, in the external transmission phase. But at that point, the system becomes unstable, and the intelligent life destroys itself. This would be a very pessimistic conclusion. I very much hope it isn't true. I prefer a fourth possibility: there are other forms of intelligent life out there, but that we have been overlooked. There used to be a project called SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. It involved scanning the radio frequencies, to see if we could pick up signals from alien civilisations. I thought this project was worth supporting, though it was cancelled due to a lack of funds. But we should have been wary of answering back, until we have develop a bit further. Meeting a more advanced civilisation, at our present stage, might be a bit like the original inhabitants of America meeting Columbus. I don't think they were better off for it.
That is all I have to say. Thank you for listening.
Procitao sam taj tekst , rekao sam ti , nije bilo potrebe da ga postiras. Taj koncept "Izvanzemaljskog zasijavanja planete" moze proci u "Simpsonovima"
Haqqani, procitao sam tvoj tekst. Jest da je zanimljiv ali nije me uopste ''preveo'' u drugi koncept shvatanja, posto sam na sve izneseno nasao spontao objasnjenje. Evo teksta koji sam nhtio da procitas:
Allah dž.š. je taj koji upucuje. Ja ne znam sta da uradim , ne mogu ti promijeniti misljenje , a ni ti meni, i to je cisti dokaz Bozanskog djelovanja, i nemoci nase volje nad drugom voljom . Samo je Allahova dž.š. volja iznad svih nasih volja. Njegovom voljom ti iznosis svoja shvatanja, Njegovom voljom ja iznosim svoja shvatanja. Da bio bio dan , mora biti i noć
"Kur'an kaže, "Neka je slavljen Onaj koji u svemu stvara pol, u onome što iz zemlje niče, u njima samim, i u onome što oni ne znaju!," (36:36). Fenomenalna (pojavna) egzistencija je dualna, tj, polna. To je dinamična interakcija oprečnosti. Ova naizgledna dualnost je osnova našeg iskustva, tj, saznanja sve do oprečnosti elektrona/pozitrona, protona/antiprotona, quark/antiquark, materija/antimaterija. Mi to vidimo i u sila/materija, djelići/valovi, kretanje/statičnost. U Kur'anskim terminima, mi imamo postojanje/nepostojanje, Prvi/Posljedni, Unutrašnji Skriveni/Vanjski Manifestujući, tama/svjetlo, nepomičnost/pokretanje.
Fizika nam takođe pokazuje da materija nije absolutno stvarne prirode. Djelići se ne mogu precizno odrediti. Quantum* teorija nam nudi neke valovite mogućnosti. (*Quantum, tj, količinska mjera najmanjeg djelića radioktivne energije, koja je uočena u podatomskom levelu egzistencije.) Frijtof Capra opisuje to ovako, "Konstantan medium koji je prisutan u cijelom svemiru (prostoru). Djelići su samo lokalne kondenzacije polja, koncentracije energije koje dolaze i odlaze, tako gubeći induvidalni karakter i rastapajući se u pozadini polja." Ovo je quantum polje koje odgovara određenoj fenomeni. Ja mislim, pak, da će oni doći do saznanja da je ovo istina za svaku fizičku fenomenu, kada napokon iziđu iz svoje istrage sa ujedinjenim poljem. Veliki Šejh, Muhammed ibn el~Habib kaže, "Doista, fenomenalna bića su samo značenja manifestovana u formama." Ona su izvorne forme, tj, oblici (ajan sabita) u ravni nepostojanja, tj, ne-egzistencije, i pojavne forme izviru iz ovih primarnih izvora. Kasnije ćemo obrazložiti porijekla ovih izvornih formi. Ibn el~Arabi kaže, "Nepostojanje samog nepostojanja je ustvari postojanje." Drugim riječima, nema absolutnog ništavila. To je punoća."
NIN wrote:Haqqani,
to je vec nesto!
Imamo debatu.
Dobro, dao si svoj argument koji ne zadovoljava moja ocekivanja, al’ nema veze.
Kazes tek u 20 stoljecu su naucnici nesto spoznali o zacecu i intrauterarnom zivotu zametka. E vidis, to nije tacno. Da ne kopam po knjigama i trazim grcke filozofe koji su, istina skromne, ali ipak imali spoznaje o zacecu i ljudskom embriju, samo cu da navedem Leonarda Da Vincia. Koliko znamo, jednom od najvecih genija covjecanstva. Isao je cak i dotle da je potkupljivao grobare da mu iskopavaju svjeze pokopane leseve i secirao ih da bi sto preciznije izucio anatomiju. Al’ haj’ nejse.
Znaci, tvoj argument je da ljudi prije 1450 i nesto godina nisu imali, ama bas nikakvog pojma o tome kako mali zametak raste u trbuhu. Ne bih se sa tim slozio. Dajem ti spontani pobacaj kao argument! Nismo mi u to vrijeme bili debili. Znali smo dosta stvari, civilizacija je egzistirala vec preko 5-6 hiljda godina. Pa arapi su u Evropu donijeli svoja znanja o astronomiji, medicini, matematici, koju su poznavali prije 1450 i vise godina! Nije svijet u to doba bio glup kao sto proizilazi iz tvog posta.
Kao sto navedoh u gore postiranom tekstu imam jedan ultimativno zanimljiv tekst i pravo mi je stalo ga postirati ali pod jednim uslovom, da ga procitas! Na engleskom je pa mi javi ako ti je problem da prevedem najbitnije dijelove.
Eto, pozdrav…
e moj nin, kakav ba l. da vinchi, pa on je secirao leseve impresioniran avicenom...
arapi u evropu donijeli svoja znanja o naucnim disciplinama koje su poznavali prije 1450 god? to dodje nekoliko stotina godina prije isa a.s.
cccccc, moj nin, pazi sta pises
inace, koliko se sjecam ova je tema vec zvakana na forumu... helem niko nikome nije nista dokazao... ja sam jos uvijek stvorenje savrsenog kreatora, a nin puki slucaj
Dogovoreno , pod protuslovom , da ti procitas ono sto ja tebi ponudim nakon toga. Engleski jezik veoma dobro poznajem 
