Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

o serie destul de interesanta legata de creationism si de falsitatile pe care se bazeaza ca teorie. Urmariti-le pe toate (15 parti)

http://www.youtube.c...C/0/KnJX68ELbAY

Edited by takillya, 19 December 2010 - 16:39.

takillya, on 19th December 2010, 16:37, said:

In afara de acuzatii nefondate nu este nimic nou si este complet neinteresant. In schimb [ https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/C8tZxcGJyhM?feature=oembed - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ] este consistenta si furnizeaza argumente stiintifice.

mario_bril, on 20th December 2010, 00:17, said:

ce legatura are filmuletul cu topicul? si care ar fi argumentele stiintifice?
drcraigvideos doar propune faptul ca theismul si teoria evolutiei nu se exclud reciproc (ca exista oameni care cred in d-zeu dar nu sunt atat de stupizi incat sa creada ca pamantul a fost creat in 6 zile), lucru prezentat chiar in primul video din lista propusa de mine

seria  prezinta teoriile false care sustin creationismul, si anume:
teoria evolutiei = atheism
scriptura este cuvantul exact al domnului
"adevarul absolut"
credinta=cunostinta, informatie
etc

daca ai fi urmarit cu atentie, ai fi inteles despre ce e vorba

takillya, on 20th December 2010, 17:37, said:

Am inteles ca sunt niste critici fara a avea argumente.

In schimb daca tu ai ai fi fost putin atent, ai fi vazut ca era vorba de Michael Behe, biochimist american, autor al conceptului "intelligent design". Este in prezent profesor de biochimie la Lehigh University in Pennsylvania si senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

In 1996, Behe published his ideas on irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box. Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.

As to the identity of the intelligent designer, Behe responds that if, deep in the woods, one were to come across a group of flowers that clearly spelled out the name “LEHIGH,” one would have no doubt that the pattern was the result of intelligent design. Determining who the designer was, however, would not be nearly as easy. He remarks:
“Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by examining the system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design much more strongly than a conviction about the identity of the designer.” Darwin's Black Box, pp 195-6.

“… “designer” is often seen as a not-too-subtle code word for God, both by those who like the implications and by those who don’t. …Like it or not, a raft of important distinctions intervene between a conclusion of design and identification of a designer. …The designer need not necessarily even be a truly “supernatural” being. …if one wishes to be academically rigorous, one can’t leap directly from design to a transcendent God. …To reach a transcendent God, other, nonscientific arguments have to be made – philosophical and theological arguments. …It is not my purpose here...to say why I myself find some of those arguments persuasive and others not. Here I’m content to “take ‘purposeful designer’ in a very broad sense.”” The Edge of Evolution, pp 227-9.

Behe gives the following reply to the assertion that intelligent design is “unfalsifiable” or that he is attempting to avoid the possibility of testing the positive claims of intelligent design:
"In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."

Edited by mario_bril, 20 December 2010 - 19:02.

pentru tine ce inseamna argumente?

daca spunea: creationismul este stupid" si atata, dar era clar o lipsa de argumente.

dara daca spune "creationismul este stupid fiinca avem o intreaga varietate de fosile care atesta procesul de evolutie ", mi se pare ca si-a argumentat afirmatia.

ca esti tu de acord sau nu cu argumentele lui, este cu totul alta treaba.

si ti-ai ales un reprezentant foarte prost. BEHE??? DIscovery institute???? Ai auzit cumva de procesul Kitzmiller v. Dover? fimosul proces pierdut de Discovery Institute fiindca au refuzat sa-si sustina cauza sub juramant?

http://www.youtube.c.../43/XpeHrkbx9LU

takillya, on 20th December 2010, 21:53, said:

Dragul meu, evolutia exista insa singura nu poate avea raspunsuri la toate. Exista verigi intermediare lipsa care nu pot fi explicate si care in mod normal ar fi trebuit sa se gaseasca ca si fosile intrucat fenomenul de evolutie implica o durata foarte mare in timp. Nu este de conceput in evolutie salturi bruste ori din pacate pentru cei ce o sustin tocmai asta s-a intamplat.

Edited by mario_bril, 21 December 2010 - 00:29.

mario_bril, on 21st December 2010, 00:28, said:

Ca sa intelegi evolutia, trebuie sa intelegi taxonomia, si faptul ca NU EXISTA SALTURI BRUSTE. Argumentul "verigii lipsa" ar fi rezistat acum 50 de ani, dar in prezent s-a gasit marea parte a verigilor lipsa.


http://www.youtube.c...u/8/bJ-DawQKPr8
http://www.youtube.c...u/7/pNrt90MJL08

takillya, on 26th December 2010, 13:42, said:

Ok. Citeste si tu aici ca sa vedem daca nu cumva inca evolutionismul nu ofera raspunsuri in toate cazurile... http://thetruth.uv.r...still_bird.html

mario_bril, on 20th December 2010, 00:17, said:

LOL. Michael Behe? glumesti? ala nu are absolut nici o treaba cu stiinta!
acel om e pt comunitatea stiintifica ca si hancu pt seismologie  

@indoctrinati: nu mai incercati sa asociati stiinta cu religia pt ca deveniti penibili!

1. nu exista nici o dovada, dar absolut nici una care sa ateste creationismul.
mario_bril (mai precis idolul lui, behe) invoca argumentul "constructiei inteligente" care este O SPECULATIE ieftina si demontata de krauss deja demult...
pe scurt, toata gandirea lor se rezuma la idiotenii de genul "afara ploua pt ca plantele au nevoie de apa", si nu la "plantele sunt consecinta faptului ca afara ploua".

2. exista dovezi solide si FIZICE care confirma evolutia.

mario_bril, on 26th December 2010, 15:44, said:

bravo, nimeni n-a zis ca are.
problema ta e ca creationismul nu are raspunsuri pt nici un caz  

Alexutsa, on 26th December 2010, 16:24, said:

Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania  and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Explica-le tu comunitatii stiintifice ca au gresit cand l-au numit...  

1. Deocamdata complexitatea ireductibila nu poate fi demontata...

2. Evolutia exista. Dar nu ofera raspuns la toate. Ceea ce inseamna ca anumite specii au aparut "altfel" decat prin evolutie. Explicati voi cum.

Edited by mario_bril, 26 December 2010 - 17:29.

1. dupa cum spuneam, omul acela e un papitoi in lumea stiintifica.
si hancu tot profesor e, si toti seismologii il ridiculizeaza, la fel cum fac oamenii de stiinta cu behe  

uite ce parere are comunitatea oamenilor de stiinta despre "intelligent design":

Quote

si nu l-a numit nici o comunitate stiintifica, nu incerca sa infloresti niste lucruri obisnuite. omul a ajuns profesor intr-o universitate. so what? retardati care ajung profesori universitari gasesti cu tona, uita-te doar in romania. ce sa mai zicem atunci de sua, una dintre tarile cele mai inapoiate dpdv educational...

2. si totusi o sa repet:

Quote

ps: poate dai si niste exemple de specii pe care tu crezi ca au aparut altfel decat prin evolutie

Edited by Alexutsa, 26 December 2010 - 17:46.

Alexutsa, on 26th December 2010, 17:40, said:

Tocmai ca aici te-ai inselat...Ofera raspunsuri exact unde TE nu reuseste. Exemplu? Pasarile...

Alexutsa, on 26th December 2010, 17:40, said:

Deci a ajuns senior fellow in Discovery Institute's Center for Science ca nu aveau oamenii de acolo de cine rade. Am inteles acum.

Edited by mario_bril, 26 December 2010 - 17:49.

vezi ca te faci de ras
"Discovery Institute's Center for Science" e o gluma proasta.

e doar o adunatura de indoctrinati ce fac propaganda religioasa, la fel ca orice biserica/cult. sunt total parareli cu stiinta.

de ce nu-mi dai surse credibile, comun acceptate de majoritatea oamenilor de stiinta? de ce imi dai ca exemple tot felul de organizatii obscure sau indivizi ce vin cu teorii personale nedemonstrabile?

a da, poate pt ca nu exista?

mario_bril, on 26th December 2010, 17:48, said:

http://en.wikipedia....trends_in_birds
mi se pare rezonabila povestea. nu stiu ce  vezi tu atat de misterios la pasari

Edited by Alexutsa, 26 December 2010 - 17:57.

Alexutsa, on 26th December 2010, 18:00, said:

Era vorba de oasele pneumatice...

mario_bril, on 26th December 2010, 18:16, said:

existau specii de dinozauri cu oase pneumatice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropoda
http://www.ucmp.berk.../wedel_0609.php

complexitate ireductibila )
http://en.wikipedia....ible_complexity

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain ......"

e primul rand din articolul Wiki )


nu te supara, dar inainte sa apari pe un forum, macar informeaza-te inainte asupra a ce afirmi.

Edited by takillya, 26 December 2010 - 19:03.

Creationismul e o aberatie inventata de evanghelistii extremisti din State. Pana si crestinii obisnuiti nu-i iau in seama. Astia au chiar si un muzeu care arata oameni calare pe dinozauri.

[ https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/BS5vid4GkEY?feature=oembed - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ] - part 1 of many

<<First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology>>

http://en.wikisource...#Page_68_of_139