Kreacionistički PR u školama proglašen protivustavnim u USA

Mene u evolucionoj teoriji vrlo zbunjuje jedna cinjenica: kaze se, da se pod odredjenim okolnostima organizam menja i postaje nesto drugo - ako je to tacno i ako je to neka zakonitost, zasto se onda neki organizam razvio u slona a drugi u zirafu, pod ISTIM OKOLNOSTIMA? Mozda ta evolucija nije zakonitost nego haos, pa ispadne, sta ispadne? Dinosaurusi su iz nekog razloga izumrli. Zasto nisu ponovo nastali u istom obliku, nakon "mnogo miliona godina"? Onda taj haos neko naziva haosom, a neko drugi bogom i gotova prica. Neko se zaklinje nad Biblijom, neko daje "casnu rec" itd. Da li se u SAD i budisti na sudu zaklinju nad Biblijom?

---

U jednom davnom periodu preci slona i zirafe nisu ziveli pod istim uslovima pa je i doslo do razvijanja jednih i drugih.
Jeste to sta ispadne - ispadne (mutacija) i ako prezivi (selekcija) ispalo je dobro.
Dinosaurusi nisu ponovo nastali jer nisu postojali isti pocetni uslovi kao ni iste okolnosti.

Ovo za budiste u SAD-u i mene bas interesuje tj. uopste za ne-hriscane.

---

stvar je u tome sto mi vidimo samo prezivele mutacije... one koje su lose su daleko daleko brojnije ali izumrle... zamislite samo koliko bakterija sa raznoraznim mutacijama izumre pre nego sto se javi jedna koja je otporna na penicilin i pocne da daje potomstvo... kad bi i sisari bili brojni kao bakterije i virusi, i oni bi mutirali istom brzinom...

Znao sam da ce ovako da ispadne. Ja ne branim kreacionizam ali teorija evolucije po meni ima mnogo problema sa pocetnim uslovima (otprilike sve se svodi "slucajnim mutacijama..."). Ona kasnije lepo funkcionise kod odabiranja vrsta i prilagodjavanja jedniki okolnoj sredini ali pocetni uslovi....

Brkas babe i zabe. Razvoj fetusa u coveka nema nikakve veze sa ovom temom. U fetusu je zapisan program razvijanja i on trosi energiju da bi se razvijao (povecava entropiju) ALI to se ne dogadja SLUCAJNO, (u tome i jeste poenta price). Poenta je da sam sistem povecava svoje stane uredjenosti (DA, i ja mislim da je to stanje minimalne energije, ali je problem u prelazu u takvo stanje, ohladjena sipka metala ima stanje vece uredjenosti i minimalne energije ali smo mi morali uloziti energiju da je ohladimo).

Energija sunca dolazi na zemlju i stvarno dovodi do ubacivanja energije u sistem ali ti je to isto poredjenje kao da kazes ako stavis komad zapaljenog drveta pored kockice silicijuma on ce posle 4-5 miliona godina postati Pentium 4.

---

Nece posle 4-5 miliona ali posle dovoljno dugog vremena hoce (ako imamo beskonacno dugo vreme na raspolaganju). Evo kako. Na silicijumu moze da se desi da se stvori posle ne znam koliko milijardi godina zivi organizam zasnovan na silicijumu pa kasnije to da evoluira u visecelijski organizam dok na kraju te vrste ne evouliraju u inteligentno bice koje ce umeti da napravi Pentium 4.

Ne zaboravi da koliko god je mala verovatnoca da se nesto desi (npr. P=0,0000000000000000000000001) to nesto ce se i desiti posle dovoljno dugog vremenskog perioda. Ako postoji dovoljno crne materije u svemiru (a izgleda da postoji) onda se ciklicno smenjuju big bang i big crunch i tako imamo beskonacno vremena na raspolaganju. Jednostavno svemir verovatno ni nema pocetak i pre velikog praska je bilo beskonacno mnogo velikih praskova i kad tad mora da se desi nesto sto ima verovatnocu vecu od nule a ma koliko malu.

Htedoh napisati 4-5 milijardi godina...nije ni bitno.

Moje vidjenje je da teorija evolucije mora i treba biti podvrgnuta preispitivanju sve dok ne dobijemo bolju i celovitiju teoriju. Iznesena je ta pretpostavka o slucajnim mutacijama i to stoji kao dogma koja se nesme dovesti u pitanje. Mislim da kao covecanstvo moramo da ulozimo mnogo vise napora da razumemo postanak zivota a ne da se zadovoljimo jednom pretpostavkom.

Pa i Njutnova teorija gravitacije se smatrala sveobuhvatnom dok nije dosao cika Albert. Mi i danas koristimo njutnovu mehaniku u uslovima kada ona daje odlicne rezultate dok se kvatna fizika primenjuje u svom domenu. Tako da i teorija evolucije u svom danasnjem obliku (licni stav) je parcijalno primenljiva a fali nam sveobuhvatnija teorija.



I ja sam jedan od "fanatika" koji gutaju takvu literaturu i sve sto si napisao je OK ali i ti shvatas da je to samo pretpostavka. A sta ako svemir u svom "genetskom kodu" ima zivot ne kao slucajnu pojavu vec kao pravilo...

---

Apsolutno! Teorija evolucije se i jeste menjala i daleko je od prvobitne teorije Carlsa Darvina.


Naravno, zato se i teorija evolucija menja i ispravljaju se "bagovi" :)


Naravno, pa naucnici i ne mogu da tacno opisu sta se desavalo na samom pocetku. Postoje samo neke pretpostavke.


Slazem se, sve u fizici je pretpostavka i tu nista ne moze da se formalno dokaze.

sad se dokazuje (ili je vec dokazano!?) da ne opstaju najprilagodjeniji vec najsrecniji - kao mala ispravka Darvinove teorije... najsrecniji u smislu da su imali srece da prezive a ne da su happy!

Sta se smatra slucajnim mutacijama, a sta ne?
Uzmimo npr. polarne medvede. Gotovo sigurno mozemo tvrditi da su njihovi preci
bili tamno smedje ili crne boje. Slucajnim mutacijama su mogle nastati crvene,
zelene, i drugacije obojene jedinke, ali bi verovatnoca da dozive starost i ostave
potomke bila znacajno manja nego sto je za jedinke bele boje.
Pitanje koje treba postaviti zasto je do mutacija uopste doslo?
Da li do sitnih mutacija dolazi u svakoj generaciji, ali da velicine populacije deuje
kao neka vrsta inercije i usporava promene. Da li neke od tih slucajnih mutacija
povecavaju, a druge smanjuju verovatnocu ostavljanja potomstva?
Ono sto hocu da kazem je kako se interpretira rec slucajne mutacije, tj kako
se posmatra neka konkretna mutacija u odnosu na skup svih mogucih.

---

http://www.onlinejournal.com/T...t/081205Stasi/081205stasi.html

---

mosh misliti, odbio ga jedan sud u jednoj drzavi. ima josh 49 i prostora da se razmashe koliko hoce.

BUSH REMARKS ROLL DEBATE ON TEACHING OF EVOLUTION


WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 - A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools.

In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution.

Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Mr. Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

On Tuesday, the president's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Mr. Bush's comments while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news.

Mr. Marburger said in a telephone interview that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Mr. Marburger also said that Mr. Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes.

Intelligent design, advanced by a group of academics and intellectuals and some biblical creationists, disputes the idea that natural selection - the force Charles Darwin suggested drove evolution - fully explains the complexity of life. Instead, intelligent design proponents say that life is so intricate that only a powerful guiding force, or intelligent designer, could have created it.

Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe. Invigorated by a recent push by conservatives, the theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20 states, with Kansas in the lead.

Mr. Marburger said it would be "over-interpreting" Mr. Bush's remarks to say that the president believed that intelligent design and evolution should be given equal treatment in schools.

But Mr. Bush's conservative supporters said the president had indicated exactly that in his remarks.

"It's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing," said Richard Land, the president of the ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Land, who has close ties to the White House, said that evolution "is too often taught as fact," and that "if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists."

But critics saw Mr. Bush's comment that "both sides" should be taught as the most troubling aspect of his remarks.

"It sounds like you're being fair, but creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint, and intelligent design is a sectarian religious viewpoint," said Susan Spath, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education, a group that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. "It's not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint by calling it the other side of evolution."

Ms. Spath added that intelligent design was viewed as more respectable and sophisticated than biblical creationism, but "if you look at their theological and scientific writings, you see that the movement is fundamentally anti-evolution."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the president's comments irresponsible, and said that "when it comes to evolution, there is only one school of scientific thought, and that is evolution occurred and is still occurring." Mr. Lynn added that "when it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class."

The Discovery Institute in Seattle, a leader in developing intelligent design, applauded the president's words on Tuesday as a defense of scientists who have been ostracized for advancing the theory.

"We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biblical origins," said Stephen Meyer, the director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture. "It's extremely timely and welcome because so many scientists are experiencing recriminations for breaking with Darwinist orthodoxy."

At the White House, intelligent design was the subject of a weekly Bible study class several years ago when Charles W. Colson, the founder and chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, spoke to the group. Mr. Colson has also written a book, "The Good Life," in which a chapter on intelligent design features Michael Gerson, an evangelical Christian who is an assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning.

"It's part of the buzz of the city among Christians," Mr. Colson said in a telephone interview on Tuesday about intelligent design. "It wouldn't surprise me that it got to George Bush. He reads, he picks stuff up, he talks to people. And he's pretty serious about his own Christian beliefs."



ili, kako se kaze: ne jebe lep, vec uporan.

---

Sud odbranio Darvina

HARISBURG - Američki Savezni sud zabranio je školama u Pensilvaniji da na časovima biologije uče decu tzv. teoriji inteligentnog dizajna prema kojoj je je viša sila stvorila život na zemlji, javlja Si-En-En. Sudija Džon Džons presudio je da bi podučavanje o toj teoriji moglo da naruši odvojenost države i crkve koju nalaže Ustav.

"Jedno da razjasnimo - Darvinova teorija evolucije nije savršena. Ipak, činjenica da naučna teorija još ne može da da objašnjene svakog pitanja ne sme biti korišćena kao izgovor da se u škole uvede nedokazana alternativna hipoteza zasnovana na religiji ili da se ne govori istina o ustanovljenim naučnim šemama", napisao je Džouns u 139 strana dugom objašnjenju objavljenom na vebsajtu suda, prenosi Si-En-En.

Teorija "inteligentnog dizajna" uči da složenost nekih prirodnih sistema ne može da se objasni teorijom evolucije, nego se pripisuje tvorcu ili natprirodnom biću. Tu teoriju i udžbenik "O pandama i ljudima", koji je objašnjava, u nastavu je uvela lokalna škola u Doveru u Pensilvaniji. Protiv teorije "inteligentnog dizajna" u decembru lane pobunilo se 11 roditelja kojima su podršku dale i neke grupe za ljudska prava.

Posmatrači ocenjuju da presuda predstavlja značajan udarac za konzervativne hrišćanske organizacije u Americi koje vode kampanju da se kreacionizam uvede u školski plan i program. Reč je o grupama bliskim predsedniku Bušu, koje su odigrale važnu ulogu u njegove dve pobede na izborima, konstatuje Bi-Bi-Si.

Locals react to intellegent design ruling
By William Dillon, Staff Writer
12/21/2005


While Tuesday's ruling against the teaching of intelligent design applies to one federal court district in Pennsylvania, the implications of the decision could be felt by proponents and opponents alike here in Iowa.
Tuesday's decision by a federal judge said school board members in Dover, Pa., violated the constitution by mandating biology classes to include a statement on intelligent design - the idea that an intelligent cause or agent had a hand in the makings of the universe. The judge ruled that "the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom."
Guillermo Gonzalez, Iowa State University's most outspoken proponent of intelligent design, said Tuesday's decision will have absolutely no effect on his pursuit of intelligent design in his research, but it could harm his work if opponents use the ruling to further attempt to censor his work.
"Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to try to use this in some way to claim that what I am doing is not legitimate science," he said.
In his ruling, the judge wrote that intelligent design is a secular repackaging of creationism, an idea which the courts ruled 18 years ago could not be taught in public schools.
Gonzalez said he is concerned that people may see this as a decision that definitively shows intelligent design as repackaged creationism when it may have only been the particular actions of the Dover school board.
Those motivations are inappropriate with intelligent design, said Casey Luskin, a program officer of public policy and legal affairs with the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank leading the intelligent design movement.
"The entire decision is predicated on the false understanding that intelligent design is just a supernatural explanation," Luskin said. "In my opinion, this decision really mischaracterizes intelligent design."
In a statement from the staff of the Discovery Institute, of which Gonzalez is one of 10 senior fellows, the organization said it will continue its interest in intelligent design.
"The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree," according to the statement.
Gonzalez has already come under criticism by the mainstream science community for incorporating intelligent design into his work. Last summer, Gonzalez premiered a 60-minute film based on his book at the Smithsonian Institute, gaining national prominence with media coverage in the New York Times and the Washington Post.
The attention prompted ISU faculty to speak up.
A few months later, a statement "rejecting all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor" was signed by 120 ISU faculty members. A similar statement was later circulated among faculty at the University of Iowa and the University of Northern Iowa.
Although the authors of the statements said they were not singling out any scientists in particular, Gonzalez said he saw the acts as a personal attack.
Hector Avalos, one of the three authors of the original statement at ISU, said Tuesday's ruling "reiterated powerfully" what intelligent design critics in Iowa have been saying all along: intelligent design is a religious concept, not a scientific one.
"I think it is a great day for science," he said.
Avalos said this ruling may now deter other school districts from teaching intelligent design.
According to the Muscatine Journal, several members of the Muscatine School District Board of Education believe that students should know about intelligent design and are likely to discuss during the coming years implementing intelligent design into coursework.
"Any good attorney is going to see what happened in Dover, and they are not going to want to go through the expense," Avalos said.
Tara Smith, a UI assistant professor who helped circulate the statement on the Iowa City campus, said she believes the ruling will help in the effort of what many in the scientific community consider "good science."
"I think the ruling will make it a little bit easier for us, but I don't think we can rest in our laurels," she said. "It goes beyond just intelligent design to the issue of teaching good science in general, which is what most of us are primarily concerned with."
In his ruling, the judge wrote it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classrooms, but he did not believe intelligent design should not be studied or discussed.
One ISU course that currently teaches the debate and controversy surrounding intelligent design is Thomas Ingebritsen's class "God and Science." The honors seminar focuses on issues of origin and the relationship between theology and science.
Ingebritsen's course does not argue for the inclusion of intelligent design in science. Rather, it educates students of the debates surrounding such issues including intelligent design, young earth creationism and evolution.
As the debate of intelligent design in science began to bubble on the Ames campus last fall, ISU President Greg Geoffroy took a stance recognizing the discussion of intelligent design in campus courses as an academic freedom.
Ingebritsen said he does not believe Tuesday's ruling will have a negative effect on his class.
"The director of the honors program has indicated that he is very strongly supportive of academic freedom," he said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ames School board has not entered debate


By Luke Jennett
Special to The Tribune

Even as the debate surrounding the emerging field of intelligent design continues nationwide, Ames School Board members have said they haven't yet been asked to consider the idea.
"The school board has not had to deal with intelligent design, and I hope we do not have to," said school board member Pat Brown. "The teaching of intelligent design belongs in a comparative religion class where students study the basis of religious belief and the origin of life from a religious point-of-view."
In Kansas, intelligent design was awarded a victory this year as the state school board voted, 6-4, in favor of allowing the teaching of intelligent design in public school classes. But in Pennsylvania, eight intelligent design supporters were voted out of their seats on the state board.
Iowa is somewhat unique in that the curriculum is decided on a district level, rather than by the state, said Kathy Slaughter, spokeswoman for the Iowa Department of Education. The state, too, has yet to consider the matter.
"We haven't had any requests to look at the issue," Slaughter said. "And we haven't heard of any districts teaching intelligent design."
Local board members have expressed their views on the virtues of teaching intelligent design.
"Science class is a place where you teach scientific principles," said Gail Johnson of the Ames school board. "Intelligent design is not science."
Studies about the theory, Johnson said, might be better suited for other areas, such as religion classes or social science studies. But she doesn't forsee the board having to deal with the issue of intelligent design in the near future."
"We're a well-educated community," she said. "I don't see the issue coming before the school board. It's a religious concept, and I do not believe public schools should teach religion as fact."
Board member Roy Cakerice said he, like other proponents of intelligent design, believes there is "purpose and pattern in the cosmos."
"I am of the opinion that the whole universe just doesn't happen to fit in such a neat pattern as it does now," he said. "I do believe that there is some force, call it what you want, that does have some bearing on the patterns of the universe. I believe there is some form of purpose to all this."
Although the Ames school board is still silent on the issue, ISU has seen more than its fair share of debate on the issue. Guillermo Gonzalez, author of a book supporting the theory, "The Privledged Planet," writes that existence may be too complicated to simply be the outcome of chance.
A petition against the theory as a scientific concept was circulated by other faculty.
One of the petition's authors, James Colbert, a professor of biology, says that the petition, which was signed by 120 ISU faculty members, wasn't in response to Gonzalez's studies, but rather to a statement made by President Bush earlier this year that intelligent design and evolution should be taught side-by-side.
"This is something I have been following and had been interested in for some time," said Colbert. "I teach introductory biology, and so I teach evolution ... When Bush made his comments in early August that he was supportive of evolution and intelligent design being taught side-by-side in biology classrooms, that's, in my opinion and the opinion of virtually all scientists, a very bad idea."
Colbert maintains that the debate over intelligent design isn't a scientific one, virtually all scientists have rejected the theory, he said, but rather an education issue. However, Colbert and Gonzalez are in agreement that high school science classes are no place for intelligent design, although for different reasons. Gonzalez says the field is new, and needs study and discussion at higher academic levels before being taught in public schools. The debates being held across the country, he said, are doing little to help the advancement of the theory, and actually help create the stigma that ID is a religious concept, inseparable from God.
"It's the school board fights," he said. "That's where it all comes from. Certain people feel very opposed to ID being brought into public schools because they see it as a way to bring religious ideas into schools. The conspiracy theory goes, 'Oh, they just reformed their plan of attack and re-named it, re-labeled creationism as intelligent design. Which is, of course, not true."


http://www.zwire.com/site/tab1...1&dept_id=554314&rfi=6

A onda...



Suuuuuuuuure ;) Reformisanim kreacionistima je malo trebalo da se odaju - mora da je jako tuzan dan u njihovim glavama posto je jedina civilizovana drzava koja bi eventualno mogla da prihvati takvu nebulozu zbog inkorporirane "tradicije" u svom ustavnom kodu, ipak ostala pri zdravom razumu.

Naravno, ne znaci da ce tako ostati - vrhovne sudije se menjaju u USA, pa mozda GWB uspe da ubaci neke koji ce i presuditi da se cela stvar ponovo proverava :)

---

Meni se mnogo više svidelo ovo: ili ovo: "Help me! Help me! The heathens are attacking my righteous cause!" Paranoja.

Polako, tek je zajahao na drugi mandat ... šta misliš šta će se desiti u naredne 3-4 godine? U poslednje vreme se deo republikanskih pristalica buni protiv Bušove politike... samo je pitanje vremena kada će početi da im baca sve veće i veće koske. A koja koska je najbolja za razularene horde tradicionalnih hardcore protestanata? A ako to ne uradi on, uradiće sledeći prezident (mada, sreća te W nema sina inače bi posle došao George Bush Da III)...

Anywho, zna li se nešto o toj teoriji inteligentnog dizajna? Bojim se da sam malo out of the loop... a izguglati frazu koja se toliko vrti po aktuelnim vestima je čisto gubljenje vremena.

---

Wiki is your friend ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Hmm to cut the story short i ID se bazira na nekoliko premisa vrlo slicnim sa good ole' kreacionizmom, samo sto su malo ofarbali fasadu pa sad izgleda malo vise "naucenjacki" nego stari dobri kreacionizam :)

Evo nekoliko njih:

- "Ok... nauka je kul stvar, mi je potpuno priznajemo (iliti, ne teramo vas da verujete da je zemlja ploca ili da se sunce vrti oko nje), al nije u stanju da objasni nasu svrhu i svu tu kompleksnost zivih organizma" (sic... nauka se svakako ne bavi svrhom i "primalnim razlogom" - za to postoji metafizika, a kompleksnost je samo subjektivni dozivljaj nekog fizickog procesa)

- "Nauka je kul stvar... al kako moze zivot da nastane slucajno" - staro dobro silovanje teorije verovatnoce, posto neukima izgleda da nauka tvrdi da je zivot slucajno nastao... cisto nerazumevanje matematicke teorije i cemu ona zapravo sluzi... objasnjavano 1000 puta, al nema ko da slusa - takvi verovatno veruju da mogu i da prevare rulet :)

- "Nas je stvorila neka visa inteligencija... ne mora da ima bradu i sl..." - hmda, nije sija nego vrat ;)

- "Nauka je kul.. ali prelazne vrste..." ... puh-leease, zar opet? :)

Inace posle malo ili nesto malo vise cackanja prosecnog ID propovedaca - dobices onu cuvenu recenicu iz kreacionizma "Kako mozes da verujes da je covek nastao od majmuna" - naravno, nauka ne tvrdi da je covek nastao od majmuna (vec da imaju zajednickog pretka prateci DNK i fosile) - i ne bavi se verovanjem, vec hipotezama baziranim na naucnom metodu, koji je baziran na formalnoj logici i proverljivom eksperimentu...

I tako :)

Elem:



Jednom recju... nova religija. A dogma im je booklet "O ljudima i pandama" - imamo i novu Bibliju :)

---

Ako već potežemo odluke Ustavnog suda SAD, šta da kažemo na obrnut slučaj. U SSSR-u, toj imperiji marksističkog scijentizma, svojevremeno je bila zabranjena genetika, pod kvalifikacijom da je to buržoaska šarena laža, jer u ono vreme nikako nije smelo da se dovede u pitanje Darvinova mudrost.

---

Odluka ustavnog suda nema nikakve veze sa naukom, ma koliko to izgledalo, pogotovo u SAD, ako je iko od ovih ikada bio tamo, i malo se upoznao zna na sta mislim. Nemojte mijesti babe i zabe. Istorija presuda u SAD, je do sada jedna od najsramnijih u istoriji pravosudja, pitajte nekoga ko nesto zna, te se stoga nemojte pozivati na civilizovanost i nekakve pravne zavrzlame oko kojih i onako malo znate.
Sto se tice nauke, i kreacionizma - pa kreacionizam nije religija, niti vjerovanje (iako mu je i naziv pogresno izabrana - u sustini se radi o slengu) nego vec upravo naucno sagledavanje nekih tvrdjenja. Izjava suda da je kreacionisticko ucenje nevalidno tj. nije naucno jer se ne moze potvrditi eksperimentalno i slimulirati, itd. je sama po sebi besmislena. Inetresuje me samo ko je vodio parnicu i na jedno j i na drugoj strani. Prvo nema smisla pricati o simulaciji sa kreacionisticke strane jer ona uzima za osnovu Boga (transcedentalan pojam - filosofija jezika, proucite malo) a mi nismo ni ljudi kako treba (kako koljemo jedni druge nismo ni zivotinje). Ona se bavi naucnim potvrdjivanjem dogadjaja iz Biblije, ne samo o stvarnju svijeta nego svih koji se ticu prirodnih fenomena i pojava. Jedna stvar da se zna, ja sam na neko drugo pitanje uputio znatizeljne o metodama, da odu na matematicki fakultet i fakultet za fiziku i odlusaju kurs parcijalnih diferencijalnih jednacina za pocetak (podrazumjeva se da imaju ozbiljno znanje iz matematike, ili ce morati jednostavno upisati fakultet) i shvate zasto metode C14 i ostale nisu validne. Sto se tice evolucije i toga da je ona dokazana - idite na postdiplomse na matematickom na Matematicku logiku i malo se naucite sta su to dokazi i sta znaci da je nesto dokazano (teorija evolucije je hipoteticka i sluzi samo za sagledavanje priode iz ugle nekih ljudi i njihovih relativnih umova - nema dokaza, postoje hipoteze koje se potvrdjuju opet hipotetickim tvrdnjama na osnovu promisljanja). Prestaite trubiti o necemu, jer ako vec hocete da budete formalisti (a o tome ne mozete znati vise od mene, tj. ja tacno znam ko zna vise od mene i imamo isto misljenje) - ni jedni ni drugi sa ovoga foruma pa ni ja ne mozemo govoriti o dokazima, o znanju i o ostalim budalestinama koje se ovdje spominju vec samo o UVJERENJU! To vam je otprilike i ono sto se govori u Bibliji samo malo izopaceno, pa su i zagovornici evolucije na ovom forumu u stvari veci vjernici od onih "kreacionista". Tu vec ima toliko pometnje, da mnogi najveci naucnici profesori evolucije (na nasim fakultetima biologije na primjer) su vjerujuci, a i obrnuto. Te se stoga ne zanosite kojekakvim uvjeravanjima ostalih jer je to glupo (ako bude trebalo formalno cu pokazati da je glupo da se "UVJERITE na svoje oci"). Manite se gluposti, jer i ja ovo pisem tek sto nesto znam, a i dosadno mi je (bez uvrede - ozbiljno), nego krenite nesto prakticno da radite jer to je i po Bibliji i po "cika Staljinu", treba hljeba jesti, a vi o majmunima i velikim ljudima i to cak jos o presudama americkog suda, pa potencijalna zena moga brata je doktor americkog prava i nije to neki svrcko, vec budzovan sa milionima na racunu (uspjesna jednom rjecu u svome "rmbacenju"), pa onda valjda ja nesto znam iz prve ruke.
Ajd, sad pozdrav i jednim i drugim, mada sam ja na strani ovih drugih.