Skip to content

Creatia arata ca exista un Creator

14/03/2010

Oare poate o furnica mica sa gandeasca toate aceste lucruri, sau pot milioanele de furnici din aceasta colonie sa fie intr-un gand pentru a construi locuinta lor in acest mod? Aceste lucruri nu arata inca odata faptul ca Dumnezeu le-a creat, Dumnezeu le-a „programat” sa se inmulteasca, sa construiasca, sa adune hrana in acest fel? Este dureros cand oamenii nu vor sa vada in aceste lucruri pe Dumnezeu. Psalmul 19:1 Cerurile spun slava lui Dumnezeu, şi întinderea lor vesteşte lucrarea mâinilor Lui.

Anunțuri
53 comentarii leave one →
  1. Feynman permalink
    15/03/2010 4:53 pm

    Hmmmm… ants…. creatia arata ca exista creator? Cam haotica creatia aia. Pentru fiecare bit de informatie exista zece la puterea a zecea biti aflati in stare de entropie maximala (altfel spus, haos total) in gaurile negre. Un univers atat de haotic are creator? [text sters]

    • 17/03/2010 7:49 am

      Creatie haotica? Si totusi uite ce au realizat aceste furnici. Au niste creiere foarte mici, si uite ce minunatie, uite ca omul incearca sa descifreze multe dintre minunatiile pe care animalele le fac. Cum poate o furnica atat de mica sa „gandesaca asa ceva”, mai ramane doar ca Cineva sa le fi „programat” in felul acesta.

      Veti fi tare ingroziti cand veti afla ca Dumnezeu le-a creat pe toate, atunci va veti da seama ca aveti o mare problema, de aceea va spun sa va intoarceti la Dumnezeu cat inca mai este timp.

      • Robotu' de servici permalink
        17/03/2010 9:30 am

        @Claudiu
        Emergenta. Vezi ca sunt niste studii fabuloase referitoare la modul in care furnicile construiesc musuroaie sau si le organizeaza. Studii stiintifice, evident. Abia astept sa ma eliberez de treab acat de cat sa le pot grok mai bine…

      • Feynman permalink
        17/03/2010 11:09 am

        „mai ramane doar ca Cineva sa le fi “programat” in felul acesta”

        Da’ de unde… programarea se autorealizeaza. Algoritmii genetici nu au nevoie de programator, dupa cum nu trebuie sa fii tu pe-acolo pe unde cad pietrele sa le impingi in jos.

      • 17/03/2010 2:35 pm

        Algoritmii genetici tot au fost creati de cineva si programati in felul in care trebuie sa se „comporte”. Tot ce exista in lume este „facut”, creat.

        Si pietrele nu sunt furnici.

      • Feynman permalink
        17/03/2010 5:32 pm

        Nu, nu au fost „creati” de cineva. Pe calculator e simulare. In alte cazuri, cand substratul nu e informatie pe calculator, nu e necesar.
        Tot asa poti spune ca si apa a fost creata de cineva, doar pentru ca noi o putem modela pe calculator. Asta e un non sequitur urias si ilogic cat incape.

        Chestia cu „tot ce exista in lume e creat” e o generalizare ilogica de la cateva, foarte putine instante, unde chiar s-a creat. Pentru mult mai multe, nu se stie. Pur si simplu. Pentru foarte multe instante, se stie. Nu a fost creat, e la voia intamplarii. Pentru detalii, a se vedea inegalitatile Bell, evidenta experimentala si detaliile despre particulele virtuale. Apropo, stiai ca universul acum e dominat de energia „neagra”? Yeap. Ca sa fac o gluma, diavolul e in detaliile celor mentionate… si e rau, foarte rau sa fii ignorant si sa n-ai idee despre ce vorbesc 🙂

        Pentru univers, nu ai de unde sti. Informatia nu poate parveni de dincolo de orizontul de evenimente. Si exista asa ceva.

  2. Robotu' de servici permalink
    17/03/2010 7:58 pm

    @Claudiu
    Algoritmii nu sunt „ceva” sa fie creati. Ei sunt abstracti. Sunt concepte (ca si conceptul de triunghi sau cerc). Culmea e ca ei modeleleaza anumite aspecte ale realitatii.

  3. 26/12/2010 3:11 am

    totul are o ordine bine randuita in unvers. o asa constructie nu se putea face decat de catre cineva. si acel Cineva e Dumnezeu. s-a facut la voia intamplarii? tu te auzi ce spui feynmann? din ceva la voia intamplarii nu are cum sa existe un soare care sa rasara la un moment si sa apuna la alt moment si iar sa rasara, iar sa apuna. deci mereu. nu se poate asa ceva. orice lucru care exista in univers are un scop. nu se putea ca din ceva la voia intamplarii sa iasa un univers in care toate au un rost inclusiv fiind benefice noua oamenilor. fiindca Dumnezeu a facut cel putin o parte din univers si in speta pamantul pentru noi oamenii.

    • 26/12/2010 5:00 pm

      @mihai

      Tu ai auzit vreodata de ” argument din ignoranta ” ?, pt ca de cand ai aparut pe blog, il folosesti fara nici o greata … nu faci absolut nimic prin comentariile tale decat sa areti ca habar nu ai despre Univers si tot ceea ce il contine .. si drept raspuns pt aceste dileme ” dumnezeu le-a facut pe toate ” … ai auzit de ” argumentul – god of the gaps – ” ? – te rog incearca sa te documentezi, iar legat de toate aceste afrimatii pozitive, prezentate … te rog adu dovezi … daca nu, atuncea sunt absolut irelevante in incercarea de a explica cum a aparut Universul si viata … ok ?

  4. 03/01/2011 2:43 pm

    pai in nici un caz nu putea sa apara din nimic. si mai ales la cum exista el si cat de complex e.
    o singura celula dintr-un organism e complexa daramite daca mai pui multitudinea de alte lucruri marete si minunate din acest univers.

    • 03/01/2011 11:11 pm

      Si ce daca e complex .. ? e de stiut ca din lucuri mai simple faci lucruri complexe .. ! de unde atata mister si uimire .. ? sti cum faci tu .. ? ca si acei oameni in urma cu 2-3000 de ani, care incercau sa intaleaga care e faza cu acel balon mare care tot apare pe cer in fiecare zi … si cu luminile care se coboara din cer, cand ploa – aka – fulgere … si neintelegand, nestiind defapt ce sunt cu ele, le-au etichetat ca fiind manifestari a unor zei … ! asa faci si tu acuma, vai de mine, un lucru e complex, atuncea inseamna ca o entitate atotputernica, care a creat tot universul, si care si-a dat singurul fiu ca sa moara pt noi, ca sa putem ajunge in rai cu el … ?!?!?!? => MIT ! get ower it, am trecut peste Zeus, Ra, Thor si alti zei ai aintichitatii, urmeaza si Iahve ..

  5. 03/01/2011 4:18 pm

    biblia este si ea un pilon important in descrierea creatiei iar din cate se vede din cate s-au descoperit pana acum din punct de vedere arheologic si din documente vechi ale unor imperii din toate acestea reiese ca biblia este o carte cu adevaruri. spre exemplu in cartea facerii se vorbeste ca in momentul in care fiii lui Dumnezeu s-au impreunat cu fiicele oamenilor, au aparut pe pamant uriasii acei viteji din vechime ori arheologia confirma spusele bibliei prin descoperirile din ultimii ani care au scos la iveala schelete care apartin unor oameni foarte inalti de 3-4 metri. unele chiar depaseau cu ceva 4 metri. pe urma carele egiptene impreuna cu oase de cai, de oameni s-au gasit in marea rosie. rotile care s-au gasit au fost duse si analizate in egipt si erau exact aceleasi tip de roti folosite pe timpul faraonului cand israelul era in robie. stalpii pe care solomon i-a ridicat in dreptul marii rosii ca semn de aducere aminte a trecerii marii de catre israel, l-a fel au fost gasiti in arabia. analele regilor asirieni au scos la fel la iveala faptul ca evenimentele din acele anale corespund cu ceea ce scrie in biblie despre israel. herodot insusi mentioneaza un capitol de istorie care este la fel ca in biblie atunci cand asirienii au venit sa cucereasca cetatea ierusalim intr-o noapte au venit asupra celei mai mari parti din armata asiriana un grup de sobolani care au tabarat si au ros arcurile, varfurile sulitelor asirienilor astfel incat acestea nu au mai avut cu ce lupta si au raspandit si ciuma printre ei. iata ce spune biblia: ” si iata in noaptea aceea a iesit ingerul Domnului si a lovit in tabara asirienilor o suta optzeci si cinci de mii” si multe alte descoperiri corespund cu biblia. despre hititii amintiti in biblie s-a spus pana in la sfarsitul sec XVIII lea ca sunt o nascocire pana cand in urma unor sapaturi in turcia de azi au iesit la suprafata mai multe temple si asezari hitite. pe urma profetiile din biblie vedem si azi ca se adeveresc. in cartea prorocului ezechiel scrie foarte clar: ” M a adus inapoi la poarta din afara a sfantului Locas, dinspre rasarit. Dar era inchisa. Si Domnul mi-a zis: ” Poarta aceasta va sta inchisa, nu se va deschide, si nimeni nu va trece pe ea; caci
    Domnul Dumnezeul lui Israel a intrat pe ea. De aceea va ramane inchisa”. Si intr-adevar profetia s-a implinit fiindca spre exemplu au fost incercari de a se intra pe acea poarta si nu s-a reusit. o astfel de incercare s-a intamplat in 1917 cand musulmanii au incercat sa o deschida si nu au reusit. si va ramane asa pana la a doua venire a mantuitorului. deci ti-am adus dovezi eminescinescule ca ceea ce spune biblia este adevarat.

    • 03/01/2011 11:37 pm

      @mihai

      Tu le incurci ca la Ploesti .. si sti de ce ?, pt ca iti inchipui, daca in biblie apare anumite asezari geografice, si construcii, care in timpul nostru noi le descoperim … astfel biblia e adevarata .. ? pe bune .. ? chiar atat de mic gandesti .. ? e ca si cum dupa 2000 de ani, oamenii de atuncea, vor sapa in zona New York-ului de azi … si vor gasi cladirile acelea mari, adica zgarie norii … atuncae drept urmare si Spider Man ar trebuii sa existe nu .. ? intelegi eroare logica pe care ai facut-o ?, daca nu, stai putin si contempleaza !

  6. 04/01/2011 11:49 am

    da tu mai inteles ca ti-am scris eu mai sus? nu. vad ca nu ai retinut. eu nu vorbesc mai sus de cladiri. eu am scris despre descoperiri strict la obiect. scrie in biblie despre urasi? scrie. ok. si eu ti-am scris ca s-au descoperit schelete de oameni foarte inalti de 3 si de 4 metri si chiar peste 4 metri. si descoperirile s-au facut recent, deci in trecut nu s-a stiut despre acest fenomen si uite ca biblia relateaza acest lucru cu urasii din vechime. deci spune biblia un lucru adevarat. am gasit ca acest lucru corespunde cu biblia?. deci si prin urmare da. am gasit. ti-am spus despre carele si rotile egiptene care s-au gasit in marea rosie, la fel oasele de cai, de om care s-au gasit. deci este acest lucru in concordonta cu ceea ce spune biblia atunci cand relateaza ca oastea faraonului s-a inecat in marea rosie in cadrul exodului? deci si prin urmare aceste descoperiri la fel confirma spusele biblia legat de evenimentele petrecute. stalpii ridicati de solomon si care dateaza din timpul lui solomon si pe care apare scris faraon, moise, Yahwe confirma spusele bibliei? da desigur o confirma. faptul ca despre hititi nu s-a stiut nimic pana la descoperirea templelor lor in turcia de azi si rectific. nu la sfarsitul sec XVII s-au descoperit ci la sfarsitul sec XIX asezarile si templele acestora. dar faptul ca nu s-a stiut nimic despre ei pana atunci dar biblia ii relateaza cu mult de a se fi descoperit vreo asezare de a lor confirma ca biblia este adevarata. da confirma si prin acest lucru se demonstreaza inca odata faptul ca nu putea fi scrisa decat de cineva care a trait in perioada cand au trait si hititii. profetiile toate care s-au adeverit cu privirea la faptul ca scrie clar in biblie ca poarta temnplului dinspre rasarit nu va fi deschisa de nimeni confirma spusele bibliei? confirma. fiindca in 1917 musulmanii au incercat sa o deschida de mai multe ori si nu au reusit. in anul urmator au invadat israelul britanicii si i-au alungat pe musulmani astfel incat ei nu au mai avut nici atata cum sa reuseasca sa o deschida. in 1967 din nou incearca un grup de arabi sa o deschida si nu reusesc fiindca israelitii revin in tara lor in acest an si castiga razboiul cu arabii alungandu-i din tara. cinci razboaie au purtat israelitii cu arabii si toate le-au castigat prin acest lucru implinindu-se inca un cuvant al profetilor din biblie in care se spune ca Dumnezeu ii va aduce inapoi in tara lor in viitor si ca ei nu vor mai fi izgoniti de o natie straina. si intr-adevar in o gramada de razboaie cu arabii din 1967 ei toate le-au castigat impotriva arabilor. deci inca un lucru care confirma biblia. intelegi acuma?

    • 05/01/2011 2:12 pm

      Indica-mi si mie te rog un articol stiintific in care se vorbeste despre oamenii aia de patru metri inaltime.

      Multumesc. 🙂

  7. 06/01/2011 11:27 am

    da iti dau un exemplu. se stie prea bine cs si la noi in tara sau descoperit acum nu demult in muntii bucegi schelete de uriasi cu inaltimi intre 3-4 metri.

  8. 06/01/2011 1:14 pm

    informeza-te si ai sa afli ca la noi in tara in bucegi s-au descoperit schelete de oameni foarte inalti de 2,50. schelete de uriasi au fost descoperite si la polovragiin mai multe etape de sapaturi finalizate pana in 1994, la cetateni deasemenea doua schelete deshumate in 2005. din zona pantelinom-lebada au fost scoase 20 de schelete de uriasi (2, 70 m) in 1989. in afara tarii noastre schelete de uriasi au fost descoperite in irak si america de nord.

    • 07/01/2011 12:10 pm

      Cum sa ma informez, daca atunci cand te rog sa-mi indici macar un singur articol stiintific pe tema asta, tu nu-mi arati niciunul? Sa ma informez, dar unde? 🙂

      Dupa cum vezi, s-a grabit colegul eminescinescu sa-ti arate, nu e cazul sa te grabesti cu concluziile: nu s-a descoperit niciun schelet de urias. :))

  9. 06/01/2011 1:16 pm

    acestea sunt uriasii sau vitejii din vechime la face referire biblia in cartea genezei. impreunarea dintre fii lui Dumnezeu cu fiicele oamenilor au dat nastere acestor uriasi.

    • 07/01/2011 8:48 am

      @mihai,

      Vrei sa zici de astia : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-giant-skeleton.html – frate sunt dovedite a fi falsuri .. si daca ar fi sa se gasesaca asa ceva, tu chiar ai impresia ca mass media ar sta cu mainile in brau si nu ar face aceste descoperiri publice .. ? tu realizezi ce ar insemna pt un areholog sau paleontolog o asemenea descoperire ?

      Pe bune ca tu nu ai nici o pozitie clara asupra a nimic din aceasta lume, tu crezi ceea ce iti spun alti sa crezi .. tu macar cercetezi cele spuse .. sau le crezi pt ca dau cap in cap cu biblia ? pe bune ca tu esti capabil sa crezi absolut orice, fara doar si poate !

  10. 07/01/2011 1:03 pm

    ce falsuri? ce vorbesti domle? cand se stie prea bine ca la cetatuia a fost santier arheologic.
    la polovragi la fel a fost un santier arheologic. lasa tu aburerile si cei ca tine care isi doresc sa lase sub tacere aceste descoperiri cu uriasii. pe acea poza in care se spune ca s-a facut un trucaj pe programul word se vede clar ca avem de a face cu un schelet de om adevarat. si am vazut si alte poze cu schelete de uriasi, care sunt cat se poate de reale si sunt schelete de om. de ce aceste descoperiri ale uriasilor sunt totusi sub tacere daca cineva ar fi avut un rol in a castiga ceva cu faptul ca s-au descoperit scheletele de uriasi? de ce? fiindca sant cat se poate de autentice si asta pe evolutionisti si cei necredinciosi inclusiv pe tine ii deranjeaza si de aceea improsca cu tot felul de minciuni si speculatii cum e cel pe care tu vrei sa-l promovezi cum ca ar fi un fals. intereseaza-te si tu si ai sa vezi ca la cetatuia, polovragi, pantelimon-lebada s-au descoperit schelete multe de oameni uriasi.

    • 07/01/2011 3:45 pm

      @mihai

      Tu ai auzit de softul Photoshop .. ? daca nu , da-i un search pe net dupa acel nume .. si daca nu gasesti nimica „ciudat” despre el, te cred pe cuvant ca exista uriasi …

      Faci aceasi eroara logica legata cu descoperirile arheologice care zici tu ca sustine biblia … si exemplul meu ramane, insa tu nu vrei sa il iei in calcul, chiar si acuma, cand tu vi si imi spui ca ” la polovragi la fel a fost un santier arheologic. ” – si ce daca a fost santier arheologic … unde sunt dovezile clare, publicate in revista de specialitate .. ? renunta pt ca acestea sunt mituri urbane create de cine stie, facandu-va sa disperati atuncea cand alti vin sa va spuna ca sunt falsuri, atingandu-va orgoliul crestin, e chiar jalnic.

      Chiar si @abis, te-a rugat sa ii areti un articol stiintific cu astfel de descoperiri .. si tu ce faci ?, in continuare scri absolut fara sens si logica, crezand ca iti dai dreptate daca folosesti cuvinte pompoase … ajung la concluzia ca tu nu intelegi sensul cuvantului : ” dovezi ” !

      ” … e clar cu tine pentru a te aduce pe drumul cel bun. ” – tu chiar ai impresia si aroganta, ca deti vreun adevar absolut .. ?

  11. 07/01/2011 1:10 pm

    e da cu profetiile care sunt scrise cu cel putin 300 de ani inainte de hristos si care s-au adeverit pe urma sau cu celelalte marturii arheologice care confirma spusele bibliei te faci ca ploua. te faci ca nu ai observat ceea ce ti-am spus mai sus. asa-i? aha. da, da. treaba ta credinta cu palnia in cap nu se poate baga. eu am fost cat se poate de clar cu tine pentru a te aduce pe drumul cel bun. mai mult si mai limpede de atata nu pot sa fiu.

  12. 07/01/2011 9:13 pm

    pai du-te domle si verfica. cum adica si ce-i daca a fost un santier arheologic la polovragi? pai ce vorba-i asta la tine domle???. pai da acolo la polovragi ca si in celelate locuri de care ti-am spus au fost santiere arheologice unde s-au descoperit aceste schelete de uriasi. da du-te te rog acolo si verifica. ai fost in vreun loc din astea ca sa verifici, sa intrebi oameni care s-au ocupat cu asta sau sa intrebi oameni obisnuiti din aceste locuri? ai fost domnule ??? ce ma atinge pe mine la orgoliu? ce sa ma atinga. nu are ce sa ma atinga. pe tine are ce sa te atinga. fiindca dovezi s-au descoperit o gramada care sustin veridicitatea bibliei. asa ca pe mine nu are ce sa ma atinga. pe tine in schimb ca necredincios are ce sa te atinga. roti de care egiptene datate din sec XIII ien s-au descoperit in marea rosie, roti de care, oase de cai, oase de oameni vechi tot din acest secol XIII inainte de hristos dateaza si tu imi vi cu chestii ca ma atinge in orgoliu ceva. tu nu realizezi absolut nimic din ce scriu. da absolut nimic. asa vad. cu profetiile care s-au inplnit te faci incontinuare ca ploua. si asta fiindca nu ai ce sa spui fiindca asa este toate s-au adeverit. saracu de tine. mai ales cu profetiile astea si cu acele descoperiri arheologice care confirma biblie printre care si spusele lui herodot care confirma biblia cum ca oastea asirienilor a fost lovita de o ciuma de la sobolani. hmmmm?? ce spui si de asta??? :)))). sper sa digeri chiar daca cu greu dar sa reusesti pana te culci sa o digeri si pe aceasta confirmare a verdicitatii bibliei pana te culci si sa nu ai greturi. du-te acolo la fata locului unde s-au descoperit acele schelete cetatuia, polovragi si altele si informeaza-te si pe urma sa vedem. dar informeza-te cu adevarat si fara trisari ca ai fost si defapt nu ai fost. nici macar nu s-a facut din asta o reclama. ca daca ar fi fost falsuri atunci s-ar fi facut din asta reclama serioasa. intelegi tu?

  13. 07/01/2011 9:47 pm

    te rog sa dai pe you tube la cel mai inalt om din lume, si la cel mai inalt cuplu din lume si o sa vezi uriasii a caror gena s-a mai pastrat in oameni pana in ziua de azi. exemplu fiind acestia. si acesti oameni pe care ii vei vedea nu sant singurii. se simt foarte bine au afirmat ei. cat se poate de bine. deci iti mai dau acusi, acusi, acusica, acusica o dovada ca acesti giganti au existat prin faptul ca exista si azi. deci sa dai pe you tube la cel mai inalt cuplu ( the talest coople) si la cel mai inalt om si vei vedea oameni din ziua de azi care au inaltime de 2,40 cum sant acestia. deci te rog sa vizionezi pe you tube.

  14. 08/01/2011 7:31 am

    alt urias din zilele de azi este rusul leonid stadnik care are 2,57 m deci aproape 2,60.

    • VladC permalink
      08/01/2011 10:22 am

      @mihai

      Daca nu este prea personala intrebarea,sunt si eu curios,cati ani ai ?

    • 11/01/2011 1:14 pm

      Este vorba despre o boala endocrina:

      http://www.netmedic.ro/boli-endocrine/gigantismul

      In niciun caz despre ce afirmi tu acolo: oameni de 4-5 metri, transmiterea ereditara a gigantismului…

      In plus, dovedesti ca nu-ti cunosti prea bine biblia. Daca ar fi sa luam de bun textul biblic, toti „uriasii” au fost starpiti la Potop. Toti oamenii de astazi se trag din familia lui Noe, care nu a savarsit pacatele respective (adica incrucisarea cu ingerii). Deci nu ar avea cum sa se transmita genele responsabile de dimensiunile alea exagerate. 🙂

      Asa ca daca nu vrei sa citesti altceva, citeste macar biblia. Si ea te contrazice. 🙂

  15. 08/01/2011 12:53 pm

    da de ce ma intrebi acest lucru? eu am postat sa se urmareasca pe you tube imagini cu persoane din zilele de azi care sunt de statura foarte inalta. ai urmarit pe you tube ceea ce am specificat eu mai sus? ai urmarit??? nu o da cu ocolisurile pentru ca inca nu am stat noi doi impreuna la bere pentru ca sa ma iei cu chestii din astea.

  16. 10/01/2011 9:22 pm

    @Claudiu,

    Urmatorul mesaj a stat in pending cateva zile bune, ca sa obs ca in cele din urma nu l-ai aprobat .. de ce ?

    • 11/01/2011 11:12 am

      V-am mai rugat sa nu va insultati unii pe altii. Puteti contrazice ideile celorlalti, dar fara atacuri la persoana.

      Va rog din nou sa respectati acest lucru.

      • 11/01/2011 2:56 pm

        @Claudiu

        Te rog arata-mi care expresie sau propozitie din acel text e o insulta adusa lui mihai ?, una singura ?!?!?

      • 11/01/2011 5:08 pm

        Ai spus despre mihai ca este vai de el. Sa stii ca foarte multe din comentariile lui nu le-am aprobat tot din cauza acestui lucru.

      • 11/01/2011 6:52 pm

        @Claudiu

        „@mihai

        La fel cum am mai zis, la tine orice zboara se mananca .. si ce daca sunt oameni inalti azi .. ? – asta vrei sa spui ca biblia e adevarata ?!?!! .. tu habar nu ai ce inseamna dovezi .. si ce daca sunt roti de care egiptene in mare … si cu asta vrei sa dovedesti ca marea a fost despartita in doua .. ? serios ? :)) … si ca tot vb de digerta .. .digera tu urmatoarea informatie … ” nici macar o heroglifa din istoria Egiptului nu mentioneaza ca acestia au tinut vreun popor numit evreu in sclavie .. ” => … si mitul tau s-a prabusit .. 😛

        Nu trebuie sa ma duc absolut niciunde, pt ca informatia ta legata de uriasi e falsa din toate punctele de veder … la fel cum nu trebuie sa ma duc sa caut monstrul din loch ness … sau sa-l caut pe bigfoot .. :)).

        Tu sti in ce categorie te afli ? : => ” cred absolut totul, pana cand se dovedeste ca nu e adevarat ” <= … stai pe o gheata fff subtire .. ar trebui sa crezi si in Zeus [ ca doar este muntele Olimp nu ? :)) ], trebuie sa crezi si in Thor … [ ca doar atuncea cand ploua si apar fulgerele, bate cuie Thor cu ciocanul lui magic :)) ] …

        Digera acestea … :P"

        – sper ca acuma e corect privin aspectul jignirii .. te rog posteaza-l pt asi observa greselile logice pe care le face !

  17. VladC permalink
    10/01/2011 10:41 pm

    Era o simpla intrebare.Doar o curiozitate personala,total offtopic.
    Nu vreau sa deturnez discutia asa ca voi accepta refuzul tau de a-mi raspunde.

  18. Robotu de serviciu permalink
    12/01/2011 2:17 pm

    Creatia arata ca exista un Creator

    Corect. Problema care se pune: dovedeste inainte de toate ca EXISTA o creatie. Lucru pe care il eviti cu eleganta (pui carul inaintea boilor). Deci – cum dovedesti ca ceea ce ne inconjoara este creat?

    P.S. „Frumusetea” si „complexitatea” nu sunt argumente (decat cel mult din ignoranta)..

    • 12/01/2011 6:03 pm

      Este simplu. Un organism complex cum este de ex. corpul uman nu poate sa apara de la sine. Unii zic ca nu este asa complex dar fiecare celula este uimitoare in constructia ei. Te uiti la celula si iti dai seama ca trebuie sa fie „mana” Cuiva acolo. Nu se poate sa spui ca celula a aparut din nimic pur si simplu. Mie mi-ar trebui o credinta oarba ca sa pot crede ca nu a fost creata.

      O masina este creata de o companie anume unde lucreaza ingineri si designeri. Chiar daca ti se pare stupida analogia, masina functioneaza pentru ca a creat-o cineva dar nu putea sa apara de la sine. Si noi functionam la fel ca o masinarie, numai ca „ceva” mai complex, adica este incomparabil cu ce a creat omul pana acum. Cand ne uitam la o masina simpla nu putem spune ca nu a fost creata, atunci ce stupid ar fi sa spunem ca omul, care este de sute, mii… de ori mai complex, ar fi aparut din nimic, de la sine?

      • 12/01/2011 7:06 pm

        @Claudiu

        Tu chiar nu intelegi expresia lui @Robotu de serviciu : ” tu pui carul inaintea boilor ” ?!?!? – tu pornesti argumentul gresit, ilogic spunand : ” . Un organism complex cum este de ex. corpul uman nu poate sa apara de la sine. ” – de unde sti .. ? cu ce iti susti o astfel de afirmatie ?

        Iar legat de analogia cu masina, e cat se poate de eronata … exact cum i-am mai spus unui user de pe acest blog … tot ce creaza omul se numeste artificial … insa restul, este naturale. So .. ?!?! – cum zicea @Robotu de serviciu , arata ca tot ceea ce e natural e creat, astfel tot ceea ce scris suna a : ” sunt ignoranta, sunt ignoranta, sunt ignorant …. etc. ” – nu poti sa pui eticheta – ” totul e creat de un d-zeu atotputernic, care e in afarata timpului si spatiul ” – e atat de absurd precum ai incerca sa explici fenomenul ” bigfoot ” – unde tot ce ai, e un clip, de prin anii ’80 [ s-ar putea sa ma insel] atat … insa tu ai trecut de la acel clip, la a incerca sa explici structura sociala a acestei creaturi … – intelegi de ce suna atat de ciudata aceasta firmatie crestina ?

        S-a discutat pe acest blog de nenumarate ori acest topic, si in ciuda argumentelor aduse, care au aratat cat se poate de clar ca afirmatiile voastre sunt false si ilogice, tot aceleasi exemple le aduceti in fata. Uite un exercitiu de imaginatie-intelectuala … sa zicem, ca nu stim absolut nimic despre origini [ aka – teoria evolutiei ] – absolut nimic, incearca sa dovedesti [ fiind lipsit de ignoranta], daca tot te intereseaza asta atat de mult, clar si concret cu dovezi, cum se intampla ca noi sa existam, ca si „viata” – , cat si Universul in sine, si te rog fi clar si concret, nu sentimente, nu explicatii de genu ” Un organism complex cum este de ex. corpul uman nu poate sa apara de la sine. „, sau sa te legi de biblie si zeul care e prezent acolo, pt ca atuncea implicit cum am spus-o mai sus, dai dovada de ignoranta … ce zici ?

        p.s. – daca nu ai o explicatie, sa sti ca cel mai sanatos lucru e sa zici : NU STIU !

      • 12/01/2011 7:25 pm

        TOT CE ESTE ARTIFICIAL ESTE COMPUS DIN CEEA CE ESTE NATURAL.

      • Robotu' de serviciu permalink
        12/01/2011 11:48 pm

        @Claudiu
        Uite, eminescienescu a inteles, dar tu nu. Sincer,. ma asteptam la mai mult de la tine.

        Ceea ce este artificial poate fi compus inclusiv din artificial (de ex. vezi emergenta, etc).

        La tine totul se rezuma la – „nu stiu, deci a fost facut de Dzeu”. O pozitie nedemonstrata, nedemonstrabila (ca nu cercetezi) si neserioasa.

        Masina are un set de schite, are o serie care poate fi identificata. arata-mi aceste „etichete” in cazul lumii si a omului (si ma refer aici la ceva clar si concis nu la ADN sau ordine sau complexitate sau alte asemenea aberatii – aici vorbim de lucrui concrete nu de interpretari sau metafore). Asta ca tot ai pomenit de masini…

        P.S. Dzeu are complexitatea ultima (este mult mai complex decat un banal organism). Inseamna ca este complet improbabil sa apara de la sine. Deci are un creator. Si nu, nu poti spune ca a existat dintotdeuna, pentru ca in acest caz implica ca timpul nu a fost creat de el (si atunci cine a creat timpul?). Daca a creat timpul, nu ar fi putut exista anterior. Deci cine l-a creat pe Dzeu?

        P.P.S. Tot nu ai arata ca exista o creatie. Analogiile sau metaforele (gen „masina” NU sunt argumente). Si analogia cu masina este si proasta (chiar tu ti-ai dat seama de asta). „Complexitatea” nu dovedeste existenta unui creator pentru ca trebuie sa arati ca singurul mod de aparitie a unui organism complex este creatia (cu alte cuvinte trebuie sa arati ca nu viata nu a aparut prin alte mecanisme, si – mai mult – ca nici nu poate sa apara). Plus ca ajungi la problema din P.S. Vezi ca e mult mai intelept si onorabil – asa cum remarca si eminescienescu – sa zici „nu stiu” decat sa inventezi explicatii abracadabrante.

      • 13/01/2011 7:53 am

        Mie mi se pare „abracadabrant” sa cred evolutionismul, adica sa cred ca totul (si totul nu este ceva simplu) a aparut pur si simplu din nimic. Se poate sa fi vazut filmul Expelled, nu vreau sa il aduc ca si argument, dar este o faza cand Ben Stein il intreaba pe un om de stiinta (nu ii mai retin numele) cum a aparut totul… si vorbea ceva de niste cristale… sincer iti spun, nu imi putea vine a crede urechilor si ochilor ce aud si vad… m-a dat pe spate, dar nu in sensul bun…

        Pur si simplu eu nu pot sa cred atat de mult.

      • Robotu' de serviciu permalink
        13/01/2011 8:57 am

        @Claudiu

        Mie mi se pare “abracadabrant” sa cred evolutionismul, adica sa cred ca totul (si totul nu este ceva simplu) a aparut pur si simplu din nimic.

        Imi pare rau, dar asta este evolutia claudiana, pe care oamenii de stiinta o resping. Teoria evolutiei este foarte explicita in acest caz: viata (ca evolutia se ocupa de biodiversitate, nu de „tot”) NU a aparut din nimic. Iar evolutia nu este intamplatoare.

        P.S. M-am uitat la niste clipuri din „Expelled”. O gluma proasta. „What the bleep do we know” e mai inteligent – si asta spune mult…

    • Petro permalink
      13/01/2011 8:01 am

      Natural Selection Is Not ‘Nature’s Design Process’
      by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. *
      The popular documentary series Skyscraper featured a fascinating look at architects using the design process. Viewers appreciated learning how this process is implemented. For anyone wanting to create the best explanation for the origin of nature’s design–which is the main issue–learning this process is vital. Charles Darwin faced an extraordinarily difficult task in devising his naturalistic explanation. He needed to find a source of intelligence–a substitute god–to explain how the diversity of life could display countless features that clearly look like they were chosen by intelligence for specific purposes. His clever explanation? Natural selection.

      After 150 years, natural selection stands as the only credible alternative to supernatural creation. But showing someone why Darwin’s concept cannot explain anything about the origin of complex design requires an understanding of why the words „selection” and „natural” are so widely influential.

      Making Natural Selection Look Like Human Engineering

      Consider why intelligence is naturally coupled to design. First, engineers use a process that sees a need. Next, they develop a plan that depends heavily on selecting the best parts and processes that fit specific characteristics of the need. A special decision-making capacity, called intelligence, is vital to „see” and „select.” Everyone can discern that intelligence is only found in certain living things, primarily humans and God.

      The word „select” becomes the key to understanding Darwin’s link between the intelligent living world and non-thinking nature. His stroke of genius for those who reject supernatural origins was to take the random phenomena of whether the traits of living things either fit their environment or not and then call it a „selection” process of „nature.” From this he extrapolated the idea that nature could make choices, which then allowed the plausible conclusion that nature actually possesses a sort of innate intelligence. Thus, Darwin successfully injected the attribute of intelligence into the non-living world–a feat many thought impossible. How did he advance this counterintuitive concept?

      Darwin began Origin of Species with the simple observation that offspring are very similar to their parents, but not exactly the same. Differences between parent and offspring (or between siblings) were important because nature might favor–„select”–those that afforded better chances for survival. If differences accumulate over time, then future offspring may be very different from their ancestors–a truly elegant and simple, yet reasonable, observation, that creatively promoted a type of intelligence in nature. And not just a simple intelligence: nature is portrayed as somehow thinking–a talented stand-in god–that always chooses the „best” traits and „saves” them to „build” things.

      The power of this concept to captivate minds must never be underestimated. It is taught in most schools as absolutely true. Understanding this provides a thoughtful way to turn a conversation by saying, „Darwin had the most incredible idea ever conceived to explain design naturally. But, like all ideas, his was not perfect– it really does not explain design.”

      „But why can’t it explain design?” Natural selection can be seen as an observation about genetic variants that allow differences in survival. But when used to explain the origin of a design, it becomes a crippled explanation, making great claims that it cannot support. Why? Because the „selection” it portrays is a distortion of selection in real design processes.

      Unintelligent Nature Fails as a Design Process

      In design processes, engineers bear the burden to do what only they are able to do–choose elements for their plan that best fit the characteristics for meeting the need. A plan that fits the characteristics „survives” the process. The engineers are active and the need is passive. Process cannot be viewed from the perspective of the „need”–that it „selected” vital features of the plan. Intelligence would then be attributed to a non-living thing, which does not take place in human design processes. Yet, this is precisely what Darwin does with natural selection–nature’s so-called design process. This lends to the „conclusion that these favored individuals had been selected to survive,” as Harvard’s foremost evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, wrote.1 But nature does not have decision-making intelligence.

      In nature, living organisms must do what only they can do. They must generate the diversity of traits–via a „selection” process within their own DNA–that will fit vital characteristics to live within their environments. If no members of a group generate suitable traits, the group goes extinct. If some members generate traits that fit, they survive. Information within DNA and how that information is expressed correspond to the thinking and selecting of a real engineer. Living organisms are active, environments are passive.

      Darwin’s theory misrepresents the design process, viewing it mostly from the perspective of a passive environment that is falsely empowered to „select” the best traits. This masquerade was well-illustrated by Mayr: „A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the ‘best’ or ‘fittest’ phenotype.”2 But in reality, the environment (or „nature”) never selects or sets „concrete objectives.”

      Whether creatures live or die depends on their ability to generate information from their DNA3 to produce specific traits that fit environments. Thus, the ability to generate „beneficial variations”4 already resides in the living organism. This is the source of design that natural selection fails to explain. The theory fraudulently ascribes the powers of diversification to variables outside the creature when diversity depends solely on variables inside the creature.

      Darwin’s Theory Uses Circular Reasoning

      Genetic variants may cause differences in survival, but that has nothing to do with explaining their design. What requires explanation is the origin of the biological apparatus with the ability to generate, save, and pass on variations in the first place.

      On this point, Darwin’s theory provides no useful knowledge, claiming, „nature’s designer is nature”–an intrinsically circular explanation. It becomes undeniable since „cause” and „effect” are seen as equivalent. Not a single advocate of evolution can escape this circular reasoning. For them, the widespread circular reasoning that „it exists because it is favored by natural selection” is very compelling, but can be countered by showing that their influence resides more in the force of decree than in the power of explanation.

      Attributing design to „natural selection” is also circular–but at a deeper level–making it harder to spot. Here is the circular part: „nature” is said to encompass both the environment and living things. Thus, the intelligent information residing in living things–the true source of design–is assimilated into „nature” and then cleverly credited to it. The step-by-step explanation for its origin is completely disregarded. So, „nature” has self-evident powers to „select” and save its own genetic varieties. As one evolutionist said, „Its truth is apparent” with „enormous power” as „a weapon of explanation.”5 However, this „weapon” only shoots blanks, since Darwin’s great explanation merely explains itself–a basic „truth” for evolution, but something wholly unacceptable to science.

      Learning a Short Example

      Look closely at Ernst Mayr’s defense of Darwin for accepting that natural selection is nothing but „survival of the fittest:”

      Darwin adopted Spencer’s metaphor in his later work. However, his opponents claimed that it was…a circular statement by defining „the fittest” as those who survive, but this is a misleading claim. Actually, survival is not a property of an organism but only an indication of the existence of certain survival-favoring attributes.6

      Mayr’s circular analysis is evident even as he denies that Darwinism is circular. According to him, „an indication of the existence of certain survival-favoring attributes” is…”survival.” He cannot escape circular thinking.

      Pulling It All Together

      Only two explanations remain for the origin of nature’s design: supernatural intelligence or natural selection. Evolutionists claim that the real design clearly seen in nature is only an appearance, while the apparent decision-making intelligence in nature is real. Both assertions are wrong.

      Natural selection is at best an observation about genetic variants and differences in survival. As an explanation of design, it is completely crippled. First, Darwin distorts the design process by falsely attributing to the environment the power to „select” traits. In fact, the ability to generate traits is a property of living things enabling them to diversify, multiply, and fill environments. Whether or not these traits fit an environment determines survival. Second, Darwin fails to explain how the ability to generate traits in living things–the real source of information for design–originated. This capacity is simply assimilated into „nature” through circular explanations.

      A person looking for a natural cause of design is still left to rely on random mutations building enormous genetic information that „emerges” over time. Magic words and chance.

      Yet, the Lord Jesus Christ still stands as the best explanation for the design that is built into living things. Just as the Bible says, „For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20).

      References

      1.Mayr, E. 2001. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books 117.
      2.Mayr, 118.
      3.”Their DNA” would include variations of genes, recombination, mutations, lateral gene transfer, epigenetic factors, and other ways DNA diversity is increased.
      4.”Beneficial variants” was a common description given by Darwin throughout his writings.
      5.Waddington, C. 1960. Evolutionary Adaptations. In Yax, S., ed. The Evolution of Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 385.
      6.Mayr, 118.
      * Dr. Guliuzza is ICR’s National Representative.

      Cite this article: Guliuzza, R. 2010. Natural Selection Is Not „Nature’s Design Process.” Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 10-11.

      • Robotu' de serviciu permalink
        13/01/2011 9:07 am

        @Petro
        [Darwin] He needed to find a source of intelligence
        Asta e suficient ca sa demonstreze ca autorul textului (cu tot MD-ul sau) habar nu are despre ce vorbeste. Si aberatiile cu inginerul… chiar crede respectivul ca analogia este un argument?!?? Pe bune?

        First, Darwin distorts the design process by falsely attributing to the environment the power to “select” traits.

        My eyes, oh my eyes…. „The power”? Autorul articolului ar trebui sa se intoarca la scoala (sau macar sa reciteasca ce a spus Darwin)…

        P.S. Nu am timp sa ma ocup si de restul prostiilor enumerate… dar tinand cont de gafa impardonabila din primul exemplu, cred ca nici nu mai trebuie sa continui sa arat ca Randy ala spune prostii.
        P.P.S. Free advice: daca tot alegi un text ca sa iti suporte niste asertii, alege unul care nu este ridicol prin prisma lipsei de intelegere asupra obiectului in disputa (cum este acesta). Exista creationisti mult mai versati si care macar inteleg (cel putin o parte din) subiectul evolutie; Randy Giuliazzia asta nu este printre ei…
        P.P.P.S. I always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: „O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!” God granted it. (Voltaire)

    • Petro permalink
      13/01/2011 8:03 am

      Highlander Tibetans Show Adaptation, Not ‘Natural Selection’
      by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
      Some Tibetans live at altitudes of 14,000 feet. Other than a few genetic differences, they are similar to Han Chinese, who live much closer to sea level. It is believed that ancient Han peoples migrated to Tibet and were able to adapt to the very thin air at this high altitude. But what kind of adaptation was necessary for this, and how did it occur?

      Lowlanders who visit the Tibetan Himalayan mountains have mechanisms in their bodies that detect the lack of oxygen in the blood that is caused by reduced oxygen at high altitude. They respond by manufacturing additional red blood cells to carry more oxygen. But this thickens the blood, eventually causing „the classic disease associated with long term residence at high altitude”1 called chronic mountain sickness (CMS). Symptoms include headache, breathlessness, fatigue, dilation of veins, and abnormal heartbeats caused by uneven blood flow patterns throughout the lungs and body.

      But indigenous people living at those dizzying heights do not suffer from CMS. Instead, their blood has essentially the same viscosity as those living nearer to sea level. Investigators determined that single DNA base changes in these Tibetans account for their lack of increased red blood cell production when they are in the mountains. The researchers couched this discovery within the Darwin-friendly term „natural selection.” However, closer scrutiny reveals that the real agent of change was not „nature,” but the bodies of the Tibetan ancestors.

      In one study published in Science, a group of 70 mostly Chinese scientists estimated the ratios of different versions of genes found between members of one sub-population compared to the versions of genes between members of the whole population, providing a measurement called population branch statistic (PBS).2

      They gathered data from 50 high-altitude Tibetans, 40 Han Chinese, and 200 Danes for comparison. They found that „genes showing extreme Tibetan PBS values represent strong candidates for the genetic basis of altitude adaptation.”2 This conclusion is scientifically accurate, as it describes the fact that the Tibetans adapted to high altitude.

      However, the researchers wrote, „Genes with strong frequency differences between populations are potential targets of natural selection” (emphasis added),2 even though „natural selection” explains none of their results. Since nature did not perform any act, this could have been more accurately rephrased from the organism’s, and not the environment’s, perspective: „Genes with strong frequency differences between populations are potential indicators of biological adaptation.”

      Charles Darwin helped popularize the idea that the mysterious „natural selection” process was able to transform one creature into a completely different one. This concept harbors the sinister implication that nature, although actually inert and impotent, nevertheless has the apparent volition to act and even the intelligence to select certain traits from a set of options.

      Changes certainly do occur between generations of living things, but they are not the result of nature actively doing anything. They are instead the result of adaptive programming inside well-designed bodies of living things. Even when a change is caused by a random mutation, the adaptive programming within cells of the developing body is able to work around the deficiency.

      Thus, when the phrase „natural selection” was used in scientific papers about these Tibetans, it was a throw-in that had no real ability to explain what was actually going on in these populations.3 This lack of explanatory power is consistent with a recent attempt to test natural selection, which found that „it” did nothing.4

      If the Creator wove into living things all the attributes necessary to generate and maintain certain changes for the purpose of filling new environmental niches as they arise, then attributing those ingenious plans to nature is incorrect. In fact, all it does is fulfill Romans 1:25, which says that men „changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.”

      References

      1.Beall, C. M. 2010. Natural selection on EPAS1 (HIF2a) associated with low hemoglobin concentration in Tibetan highlanders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (25): 11459-11464.
      2.Yi, X. et al. Sequencing of 50 Human Exomes Reveals Adaptation to High Altitude. Science. 329 (5987): 75-78.
      3.Guliuzza, R. 2010. Natural Selection Is Not „Nature’s Design Process.” Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 10-11.
      4.Thomas, B. Lizard Study Questions Natural Selection. ICR News. Posted on icr.org June 4, 2010, accessed July 14, 2010.
      * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

      Article posted on July 15, 2010.

      • Robotu' de serviciu permalink
        13/01/2011 9:13 am

        @Petro
        1. Ce intelegi prin „adaptare” in contextul acestui text? Explica sa inteleg, pentru ca am o vaga banuiala ca tu presupui adaptarea ca fiind un tip de evolutie lamarckiana (lucru arata ca fiind fals acum aproape un secol).
        2. Existenta indivizilor „adaptati” (daca nu te referi la o evolutia lamarckiana) in numar predominant fata de existenta acelorasi indivizi in populatiile invecinate (sau raportat la numarul deindivizi „neadaptati” din populatia respectiva) este chintesenta selectiei naturale. Deci chiar articolul propus dovedeste existenta selctiei naturale. Reiterez cerinta mea sa explici ce intelegi prin „adaptare” in contextul textului propus de tine aici…
        3. Uita-te te rog la prima referinta bibliografica folosita in text; vezi numele articolului..

    • Petro permalink
      13/01/2011 8:07 am

      Complicated Cells Leave No Room for Evolution
      by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
      A hundred and fifty years ago, most biologists believed that cells were „simple” blobs of protoplasm. This made Darwinian evolution easier to accept, since all nature would have to do to make a new creature is accidentally adjust a collection of rudimentary parts from an old one.

      But this 19th-century perception of biological simplicity predated the discovery of DNA, a precisely structured molecule packed with the genetic language necessary to replicate and sustain life. Evolutionary thought tried to accommodate this newly discovered complexity by developing the proposal that most DNA is nonfunctioning „junk,” and therefore available for natural processes to alter and shape into new, useful forms.

      But a recent news feature in the scientific journal Nature again scuttles evolutionary attempts to explain biology in purely naturalistic terms. Titled „Life is complicated,” the article summarized discoveries from the last decade that shatter the notion that anything in living cells is simple. Recent investigations have focused on one of the most complicated aspects of cells–gene regulation. Like any product, specifying and manufacturing a gene is much easier than specifying which, when, how often, and how much should be produced.

      In the Nature article, author Erika Check Hayden cited the 1997 edition of the authoritative textbook Genes VI, which confidently described the then-latest scientific understanding of gene regulation:

      The crux of regulation is that a regulator gene codes for a regulator protein that controls transcription by binding to particular site(s) on DNA.1

      However, „just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” according to Hayden. „Few predicted, for example, that sequencing the genome would undermine the primacy of genes by unveiling whole new classes of elements–[DNA] sequences that make RNA or have a regulatory role without coding for proteins.”2

      Joshua Plotkind of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia told Nature, „Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things–such as how a cell turns on and off–is incredibly naïve.”2

      The existence of elaborate yet robust regulatory mechanisms is one thing, but their ubiquitous prevalence throughout DNA further highlights the depth of ignorance among biologists even just ten years ago.

      Cellular interactions are now understood to be a network so complicated that some biologists doubt that it will ever be fully deciphered. As knowledge of the informational structures in living cells increases, naïve notions of biological simplicity diminish. But with each layer of ignorance that is peeled away by scientific discovery, there are fewer „simple” places where the ever-more-complicated story of big-picture evolution can hide.

      Changing one life form into another sounds easy if all that is required is tweaking a few genes.3 But the truth is that just one change in either the gene or non-gene areas (which is to say almost any area) of DNA can produce a myriad of downstream and/or upstream effects for diverse functions–such as embryonic development and daily cellular „housekeeping” tasks.

      It’s quite clear that evolution would involve so many, so diverse, and yet such specific genetic alterations along the way that the resulting string of events would be so unlikely as to be almost indistinguishable from a miracle.

      References

      1.Lewin, B. 1997. Genes VI. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 336.
      2.Hayden, E. C. 2010. Human genome at ten: Life is complicated. Nature. 464: 664-667.
      3.Tomkins, J. 2009. Tweaking the Genetic Code: Debunking Attempts to Engineer Evolution. Acts & Facts. 38(12): 12-13.
      * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

      Article posted on May 5, 2010.

    • Petro permalink
      13/01/2011 8:10 am

      Origins Breakthroughs of 2010: Cell Biology and Genomics
      by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
      Every year brings new scientific discoveries that shed light on the past. The Institute for Creation Research is dedicated to the study of origins from a biblical perspective, and ICR News has compiled what it considers to be the top findings related to origin studies from 2010. This article examines genome and cell biology breakthroughs.

      The First Animal Cell Required Complicated All-or-Nothing Structure

      In an October 2010 issue of Nature, evolutionary biochemist Nick Lane of University College London reported that any eukaryotic cell requires a fully functional mitochondrion that is already in place.1 Eukaryotic cells, which have a nucleus and make up plants and animals, have mitochondria that are responsible for manufacturing fuel for the rest of the cell to constantly „burn.” Without these particular components, such cells could not survive.

      This result implies that it is impossible for a Darwinian, naturalistic, step-by-step process to have developed the first eukaryotic cell. Instead, Lane and study co-author William Martin proposed that the first eukaryotic cell „suddenly” received a fully functioning mitochondrion when one bacterium engulfed a smaller one. The problem is, in the words of today’s pre-eminent evolutionist Richard Dawkins, „Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to a miracle.”2

      Many More Uses for ‘Junk’ DNA, All of Them Vital

      Only a decade ago, many biologists thought that most human DNA was useless „junk.” Evolutionists hypothesized that with each evolutionary transition, certain non-coding „left over” DNA would be carried forward in the new organism. Nature supposedly tinkered with all that surplus DNA, some of which accidentally became useful enough to allow a human to eventually form from a fish. But studies in 2010 and prior have kept revealing uses for that „useless” material.

      One class of this „junk” DNA has turned out to have a specific regulatory function. It yields „long, non-coding RNA” that actually operates as a switch that helps turn off gene expression.3 Members of another class of formerly-called junk DNA, known as „pseudogenes,” were also found to play an important role in regulating gene expression.4 Additional unforeseen classes of sequences, like microRNAs, add to the robust and complicated regulation networks upon which cellular life depends.5

      Not only does the sequence of non-gene DNA have vitally important functions in cell and DNA regulation, as well as embryonic development, but it helps set up chromatin into a stunning three-dimensional layout that provides ready access for DNA processing machinery during the daily life of the cell.6

      Conclusion

      Eukaryotic cells had to have been created by a miraculous event. A fully functional mitochondrion is required to process all eukaryotic DNA, and mitochondrial power generators cannot be invented by strictly natural processes. Likewise, DNA—both genes and non-genes—is almost totally packed with information that is vital or very useful to the functioning and survival of the cell, just as if it had been intentionally created. As, indeed, the Bible indicates it was.

      References

      1.Thomas, B. Study Demonstrates Complex Cells Could Not Evolve from Bacteria. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 8, 2010, accessed December 29, 2010.
      2.Dawkins, R 1996. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 83.
      3.Thomas, B. Another Setback for ‘Junk’ DNA. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 18, 2010, accessed December 29, 2010.
      4.Thomas, B. ‘False’ Gene Discovery Confirms Creation Prediction. ICR News. Posted on icr.org July 12, 2010, accessed December 29, 2010.
      5.Thomas, B. Complicated Cells Leave No Room for Evolution. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 5, 2010, accessed January 7, 2011. See also Khraiwesh, B. et al. 2010. Transcriptional Control of Gene Expression by MicroRNAs. Cell. 140 (1): 111-122.
      6.Thomas, B. Genomes Have Remarkable 3-D Organization. ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 15, 2010, accessed January 3, 2011.
      * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

      Article posted on January 10, 2011.

    • Petro permalink
      13/01/2011 8:20 am

      Origins Breakthroughs of 2010: Human Genetics
      by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
      Every year brings new scientific discoveries that shed light on the past. The Institute for Creation Research is dedicated to the study of origins from a biblical perspective, and ICR News has compiled what it considers to be the top findings related to origin studies from 2010. This article examines the field of human genetics, and will be followed by features on breakthroughs in zoology, paleontology, astronomy, and the genome.

      The Splicing Code

      The genetic code is part of a functioning language. It has all the features of communicated information, including symbols, grammar, meaning, and purpose. And it’s all contained in DNA, providing the information to build proteins.

      Researchers have long suspected that this first code was just one part of the process, since it only specified the production of proteins. Another code or codes must tell cells when to start and stop production, as well as how fast to produce the needed materials.

      This year, researchers worked hard to piece together critical parts of an entirely different code, one that transmits information using certain DNA sequences, the three-dimensional shapes of many RNA molecules, and other components in the cell.

      A team recently found that some systems are activated by many tiny signals added together. Once enough signals convey the same message along different pathways, production is switched on. The researchers also found that many systems are regulated by „antagonistic” signals. One RNA carries information that is „pro” production, while another RNA signals „anti” production. When more of one type of RNA is present than the other, the majority signal is added to the regulation network. In a study published in Nature, information in „the splicing code” was found to be deeply complicated and involved many layers of communication.1

      What does this have to do with origins? Every single example of coded information, or language, is always produced through rational, intentional will or volition. There are no books without authors, and all known computer programs came from programmers who knew the proper language. What has been discovered about the genetic code has been clearly sufficient to infer the presence of a great Creator of life. Now, the splicing code, which appears to be orders of magnitude more complicated, argues even more forcefully for a rational and intentional mind behind the processes of life.

      How Fast Human Mutations Accumulate

      As mutations accumulate in populations of animals and people, they act as ticking time bombs primed to go off when the organisms can no longer function because of degraded genetic information. An accurate measurement of the rate of mutations would enable researchers to estimate how many „ticks” are left before the bomb explodes, and how many ticks have already taken place.

      According to a study published in January 2010, humans accumulate mutations at a rate of 1 to 5 percent per generation.2 Another 2010 DNA base-by-base analysis yielded a smaller number, finding that 60 new, irrevocable mutations add up each generation.3 Either result shows that the human genome clock has been counting down fast. These data set reasonable limits to the total duration of mankind on earth. Those limits are incompatible with „millions of years,” but they fit just right with the thousands of years history that the Bible provides. The human genome looks very young indeed.

      Human DNA Is Unique

      One common argument used to support the evolutionary concept that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ape-like ancestor was that the two species share so many of the same genes. In 2009, a counterargument held that these studies focused only on the genes and ignored the equally critical regulatory DNA sequences. Thus, the „we share the same genes as chimps” argument can only be supported by extremely biased studies.4

      But in 2010, the first direct, sequence-for-sequence comparison of any of the corresponding chimp and human chromosomes was published. The new work was made possible by powerful new techniques that are able to quickly compare reams of data, unlike prior spot-check estimates of DNA sequence similarity.

      The results showed that the human „Y” chromosome is totally different from the chimp’s, containing large sections of coded information that were unique to man, and very large portions that had a unique layout and arrangement.5 In other words, humans and chimps look to be in no way related.

      Conclusion

      Discoveries from 2010 have brought confirmation of clear biblical teaching that mankind is a distinct and unique high-tech creation that is locked into a long-term pattern of decay. Who knows what 2011 will bring to bear on the question of human origins? It would be no surprise, however, if further unforeseen specified complexities are discovered.

      References

      1.Barash, Y. et al. 2010. Deciphering the splicing code. Nature. 465 (7294): 53-59.
      2.Lynch, M. 2010. Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (3): 961-968.
      3.Thomas, B. New Genomes Project Data Indicate a Young Human Race. ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 9, 2010, accessed December 22, 2010.
      4.Tomkins, J. 2009. Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research? Acts & Facts. 38 (6): 12.
      5.Tomkins, J. and B. Thomas. 2010. New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims. Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 4-5.
      * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

      Article posted on January 4, 2011.

      • Petro permalink
        13/01/2011 8:30 am

        Origins Breakthroughs of 2010: Paleontology
        by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
        Every year brings new scientific discoveries that shed light on the past. The Institute for Creation Research is dedicated to the study of origins from a biblical perspective, and ICR News has compiled what it considers to be the top findings related to origin studies from 2010. This article examines paleontology, and will be followed by features on breakthroughs in astronomy and the genome.

        Feathers, Pigments, and Bone in Fossils

        Like 2009, the year 2010 produced an array of studies on stunning soft tissues from fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old. The problem for evolutionary long ages is that soft tissues are known to decay quickly, within only thousands of years. And this problem only gets worse with each additional fossil tissue find.

        For example, an extinct variety of penguin was found fossilized in South America, and its plumage was compared to that of modern varieties. The fact that this fossil still exhibited feather colors, and the reasonable assumption that the original penguin feather melanosomes should no longer exist after „36 million years,” was not emphasized in the reports.1

        Several fossils were analyzed in 2010 for specific proteins, even though proteins should no longer exist after having been encased in rocks for untold millions of years. For example, the iconic Archaeopteryx bird was shown to have original bone fragments and feathers, not just impressions left in the rock.2 Likewise, researchers found original carbon from dark pigment structures in a fossilized Sinosauropteryx dinosaur.3

        Whole Insect, Skin, and Blood Residue Fossils

        Some of the best-preserved fossils are those of insects entombed in amber. Amber forms very quickly from resins made by certain trees and is produced more copiously when those trees are damaged, as would occur in a catastrophe. Two major amber deposits were discovered in 2010, one in Australia and one in India. In both cases, the insects, animals, and plant parts trapped within showed very few signs of decay.4,5

        A shrimp from Oklahoma was found in a rock layer and assigned an evolutionary age of over 300 million years, but it still had muscle tissue in its tail.6 The limestone in which it was buried most likely would have formed during the year-long Flood of Noah, and is thus only about 4,400 years old.

        The fossil with perhaps the best-preserved original tissues was that of a mosasaur, an extinct marine reptile, found decades ago in Kansas but only described this year. It had mummified skin, original retinal material in its eye cavity, and decayed hemoglobin residue that was still colored red.7 This was followed by another mosasaur discovered in South Dakota with skin, cartilage connected to its bones, and original organic stomach contents.8

        Conclusion

        Based on how quickly animal bodies of known age have decayed, it is reasonable to conclude that certain organic structures such as pigments and pigment-containing melanosomes, collagen (skin and cartilage), keratin (feather) proteins, hemoglobin (blood) proteins, and muscle cells could resist decay for a few thousand years when encased in rock. But a few thousand years is nowhere near the massive time spans that evolutionary history requires.

        This past year saw more reason to abandon the idea of millions-of-years evolutionary history in favor of the thousands-of-years framework testified by God’s revealed Word.

        References

        1.Thomas, B. Giant Penguin Feather Poses Problem for Long Ages. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 19, 2010, accessed December 27, 2010.
        2.Thomas, B. Archaeopteryx Fossil Shows ‘Striking’ Tissue Preservation. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 19, 2010, accessed December 28, 2010.
        3.Thomas, B. Feathered Dinosaur Debate Exhibits Young Earth Evidence. ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 8, 2010, accessed December 28, 2010.
        4.Thomas, B. Cache of Amber in India Looks Young. ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 5, 2010, accessed December 27, 2010.
        5.Thomas, B. Fantastic Australian Amber Supports Young World. ICR News. Posted on icr.org July 7, 2010, accessed December 27, 2010.
        6.Thomas, B. ‘Remarkably Preserved’ Shrimp Is 350 Million Years Old? ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 18, 2010, accessed December 27, 2010.
        7.Thomas, B. ’80 Million-Year-Old’ Mosasaur Fossil Has Soft Retina and Blood Residue. ICR News. Posted on icr.org August 20, 2010, accessed December 28, 2010.
        8.Thomas, B. How Long Can Cartilage Last? ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 29, 2010, accessed December 28, 2010.
        * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

        Article posted on January 6, 2011.

  19. 12/01/2011 9:20 pm

    @Claudiu

    Actually you proving my point … insa nu ajuta aceasta afirmatie sub nici o forma pozitia ta ?!?!?!?

    • Robotu' de serviciu permalink
      13/01/2011 9:18 am

      @Petro
      Vezi ca pana si cei care care au descoperit acel „soft tissue” in oase preistorice nu sustin ca acesta este un exemplu de celule sanguine sau tesut organic. NU sunt asa ceva, o simpla excursie pe Wikipedia (nu mai vorbesc de referintele de la urma articolului WP, care duc la articole stiintifice mai serioase) te-ar fi lamurit care este problema.

  20. 13/01/2011 3:05 pm

    @Petro,

    Daca citeai ce i-am scris lu @Claudiu, te-ai fi scutit de URIASUL copy / paste, textul era acesta : ” S-a discutat pe acest blog de nenumarate ori acest topic, si in ciuda argumentelor aduse, care au aratat cat se poate de clar ca afirmatiile voastre sunt false si ilogice, tot aceleasi exemple le aduceti in fata. Uite un exercitiu de imaginatie-intelectuala … sa zicem, ca nu stim absolut nimic despre origini [ aka – teoria evolutiei ] – absolut nimic, incearca sa dovedesti [ fiind lipsit de ignoranta], daca tot te intereseaza asta atat de mult, clar si concret cu dovezi, cum se intampla ca noi sa existam, ca si “viata” – , cat si Universul in sine, si te rog fi clar si concret, nu sentimente, nu explicatii de genu ” Un organism complex cum este de ex. corpul uman nu poate sa apara de la sine. “, sau sa te legi de biblie si zeul care e prezent acolo, pt ca atuncea implicit cum am spus-o mai sus, dai dovada de ignoranta … ce zici ?
    p.s. – daca nu ai o explicatie, sa sti ca cel mai sanatos lucru e sa zici : NU STIU !”

    – sincer, nu stiu cine iti v-a citi romanul postat mai sus, poate daca era in lb romana, dar si asa avea slabe sanse.

    – verifica textul de mai sus care a fost initial postat pt @Claudiu, dar in cele din urma, e pt toti creationistii de pe acest blog.

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: