Darwin

Astronomija, geologija, botanika ...

Moderator: Xaotix

User avatar
SAMSUILUNOV OTAC
Autor u Smokvinom listu
Posts: 2101
Joined: 30 Dec 2005, 00:50
Location: 26. dimenzija, treća kuća desno, iza bukve

Unread post by SAMSUILUNOV OTAC » 01 Feb 2006, 20:15

Da stvar bude lu?a, jedan sve?enik je jednom prilikom na satu uporno ponavljao da se Bibliju ne smije shva?ati doslovno. A gomila laika radi suprotno.
Koliko se ja razumijem, katoli?ki dio kr[?]?anstva shva?a (ili trebao shva?ati) Bibliju kao skup metafora i simbola koji se mogu referirati na doga?aje iz svakodnevnog Ĺživota. A Jehovini svjedoci shva?aju Bibliju doslovno (ovo znam iz vlastitog iskustva jer sam vi[?]e puta imao bliske susrete s njima i njihovim poku[?]ajima vrbovanja; ali uspio sam ih se rije[?]iti na kulturan i civiliziran na?in:whax: ). :D
Kap limuna, zrno soli,
I svaka rana malo više boli.

User avatar
Miles
Ancient
Posts: 776
Joined: 25 Feb 2005, 16:01
Location: sarajevo

Unread post by Miles » 02 Feb 2006, 10:34

Zeljko wrote:a kako ovo shvatiti

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." -- 2 Kings 2:23-24
Zar nisi mogao prona?i citat na našem a ne na engleskom? :!: :x

User avatar
Kris
Jedi Master
Posts: 228
Joined: 19 Aug 2003, 13:37

Unread post by Kris » 02 Feb 2006, 16:43

To je iz Starog Zavjeta, je'l da?

Pa to se uop?e ne kosi sa starozavjetnim "oko za oko, zub za zub". Tek je Novi Zavjet uveo "tko tebe kamenom, ti njega kruhom", "okreni drugi obraz" i sli?no.
You think of me as rats. You think of a thing known as The Air Force Survival Handbook, where it explains that if you cut off one of my heads --which is where the poison is -- you must then slit open the ventral side and continue the cuts to extend the length of each leg. Subsequent to this, the skin can be peeled off, the belly opened and emptied, the backbone split and both halves roasted on sharpened sticks over a small fire.

User avatar
Zeljko
Ancient
Posts: 746
Joined: 31 Mar 2005, 22:39
Location: Sarajevo
Contact:

Unread post by Zeljko » 02 Feb 2006, 17:24

Miles wrote: Zar nisi mogao prona?i citat na na[?]em a ne na engleskom? :!: :x
eee jesi ljen?ina... trebalo mi je 3 minute da prona?em

23Odatle je uza[?]ao u Betel. Dok je i[?]ao putem, dje?aci bijahu izi[?]li iz grada i rugahu mu se govore?i: "Hodi, ?elo! Hodi, ?elo!" 24On se obazre, pogleda ih i prokle ih u ime Jahvino. I odmah izi?o[?]e dva medvjeda iz [?]ume i rastrga[?]e ?etrdeset i dvoje djece. 25Odatle ode on na goru Karmel, a odande se vrati u Samariju.
Woe be unto him who opens one of the seven gateways to hell, because through that gateway evil will invade the world.

User avatar
Bahod
The...
Posts: 1584
Joined: 02 Aug 2005, 21:37
Location: ZG
Contact:

Unread post by Bahod » 02 Feb 2006, 17:47

novosti iz [?]kole

upravo sam danas saznao ( od ve? prije spominjane moje bolje tri?etvrtine) da je danas bogoslov na nastavi vjeronauka djeci rekao ni malje ni vi[?]e da su Cigani, maloumni, pedofili i homoseksualci olo[?] dru[?]tva

dakle strpao je sve u jedan ko[?]
jedino mi nije jasno kaj su mu Romi skrivili


e kad ja kaĹžem vjeronauk van iz [?]kole onda sam zadrti ateist i komunjara

User avatar
Izitpajn
Shai-Hulud
Posts: 3859
Joined: 10 Nov 2003, 17:42
Location: Sesvete Republjik
Contact:

Unread post by Izitpajn » 02 Feb 2006, 18:01

onda sam zadrti ateist i komunjara
A to je nešto loše? :lol:

User avatar
Xaotix
The Source
Posts: 2701
Joined: 19 Apr 2005, 12:55
Location: Schrodingerova kutija

Unread post by Xaotix » 02 Feb 2006, 20:39

Izitpajn wrote:
onda sam zadrti ateist i komunjara
A to je ne[?]to lo[?]e? :lol:
Naravno! Takvi besprizornici ne ostavljaju napojnice nakon mise :ocasion:

Nego, Toliki mileniji evolucije, a o darinu samo 5 strana....
Medjum, Bill Hicks je rekao bas nesto na tu temu:
"Fundamentalist Christianity. Fascinating. These people actually believe the world is 12 thousand years old. Swear to God! Based on what? I asked them. 'Well, we looked at all the people in the Bible, and we added them up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages ? 12 thousand years.' Well, how fucking scientific! Okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble there. That's good.

You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? 'That's right.' Okay, I got one word to ask you. A one word question. Ready? 'Uh-uh.' Dinosaur.

You know, the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, and they existed in that time ... you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point. 'And lo, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus ... with a splinter in his paw. And O, the disciples did run a-shrieking: "What a big fucking lizard, Lord!" But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O, so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills. And O, Scotland did praise the Lord: "Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord."'"

"But get this. I actually asked one of these guys: Okay ? dinosaur fossils. How does that fit into your scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in. He says: 'Dinosaur fossils? God put those here to test our faith.' Thank God I'm strapped in right now here, man. I think God put you here to test my faith, dude. You believe that? 'Uh-huh.' Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God might be ... fucking with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: 'Ho ho ho. [imitates burying fossils] We will see who believes in me now, ha ha ha. I am God, I am a prankster. I am killing Me, ho ho ho.' You know, you die and go to St. Peter: 'Did you believe in dinosaurs?' 'Well, yeah. There were fossils everywhere. [sound of trapdoor opening] Aaah!' 'You fucking idiot! Flying lizards? You're a moron. God was fucking with you!' 'It seemed so plausible! Aaah!' 'Enjoy the lake of fire, fucker!'"
Randomness is strong with this one!

User avatar
Bahod
The...
Posts: 1584
Joined: 02 Aug 2005, 21:37
Location: ZG
Contact:

Unread post by Bahod » 02 Feb 2006, 23:55

Ne moĹže[?] tako [?]to prosje?nom recimo Ameri?anu zna?i to [?]to u nekoj knjizi pi[?]e o evoluciji. Nema on vremena ( a ni sposobnosti ) tako ne[?]to ?itati. A i za[?]to bi kad mu BoĹžji pastir ?ita iz Biblije svaku nedjelju.
Di ?e on na?i vremena izme?u sexa sa sestri?nom, voĹžnje u truck-u, pucanja po kojotima/aligatorima i ga?anja crnaca fla[?]ama jo[?] i ?itati nekakve knjige.

Kad smo kod toga ?ak da i pro?ita za[?]to bi vjerovao.
Po ?emu su te knjige bolje od Biblije?
Kad smo ve? kod toga ajmo se vratiti na ve? prije spomenuto za[?]to bi mene to smetalo.
Nek ljudi vjeruju [?]to Ĺžele, Ĺživot je puno jednostavniji kad vjeruje[?].
Jer pogledaj [?]to se doga?a ako ne vjeruje[?]- onda mora[?] preuzeti odgovornost za svoj Ĺživot i svoje postupke.
Puno je jednostavnije re?i ?Lord moves in mysterious ways.? Ili ?Jesus made me dooet?

User avatar
Dagon
The Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: 14 Jul 2004, 18:15
Location: Istria/R'lyeh

Unread post by Dagon » 03 Feb 2006, 10:13

Ili Cthulhu fhtagn :D
At last, the stars are finally right...

User avatar
SAMSUILUNOV OTAC
Autor u Smokvinom listu
Posts: 2101
Joined: 30 Dec 2005, 00:50
Location: 26. dimenzija, treća kuća desno, iza bukve

Unread post by SAMSUILUNOV OTAC » 06 Feb 2006, 23:08

Vjera i Crkva kao institucija su dvije posve razli?ite stvari. Jo[?] tamo od 476. pa nadalje kad je polako preuzela vlast nad Starim svijetom. Da ne spominjem crkveni raskol i sli?ne politi?ko-ikonografske zavrzlame kroz koje je prolazila. A Torquemada je zakucao posljednji ?avao u njen religijski lijes. Pogledajte dana[?]nju Crkvu. Ne znam kako je u sredinama u kojima vi ostali Ĺživite, ali kod mene svake godine postoji crkveni hara? kad treba posve?ivati ku?e. Do?e pop sa ?itavom delegacijom klinaca za koje nemam pojma koja im je funkcija jer cijelo vrijeme samo stoje i bulje u prazno dok pop [?]prica po ku?i s borovom ili ?empresovom (uglavnom, neka takva biljka) granom i onda lijepo izvadi nekakav karton s popisom stanovnika doti?ne ulice, pa pribiljeĹži koliko mu je koje ku?anstvo dalo love. Svota koju svaka obitelj mora dati je 400 ?una pa ako da[?] manje od toga onda bude[?] prozivan u crkvi i pop te svako malo zivka na telefon da mu da[?] i ostatak. Ne bih se ?udio da uskoro po?ne slati reketare po novac. E da, onom razredu djece [?]to tr?i za popom isto mora[?] dati novaca. Ipak su oni neka, valjda posve?ena djeca. Pa da ti Lucifer ne bi spalio brkove, mora[?] ga potplatiti. Izgleda da je i u paklu ovih dana zavladao kapitalizam.
Mislim, nije samo u kr[?]?anstvu takva situacija. Ni kod muslimana nije puno bolje. Ovo [?]to se de[?]ava u Danskoj ovih dana samo pokazuje koliko vjera i religija mogu biti opre?ne stvari.

PS: ako me vi[?]e ne bude na forumu, zna?i da nisam dovoljno platio onu djecu, pa mi je Lucifer spalio brkove! :angel:
Kap limuna, zrno soli,
I svaka rana malo više boli.

User avatar
Xaotix
The Source
Posts: 2701
Joined: 19 Apr 2005, 12:55
Location: Schrodingerova kutija

Unread post by Xaotix » 20 Feb 2007, 23:56

I evo ponovo veselih vijesti iz (a otkud drugdje?) SAD-a.

Naime, kako su u nekim školama ipak odbili program Inteligentnog dizajna kao neznanstven, jer u njemu uopće nema znanosti, IDevci su se odlučili baviti sa znanstvenim pitanjima ne bi li dodali težinu svojim idejama. Da li je to samo izvrtanje znanosti ili neki napredak?
Više na New Scientist: Intelligent design; The God Lab
Pay a visit to the Biologic Institute and you are liable to get a chilly reception. "We only see people with appointments," states the man who finally responds to my persistent knocks. Then he slams the door on me.

I am standing on the ground floor of an office building in Redmond, Washington, the Seattle suburb best known as home town to Microsoft. What I'm trying to find out is whether the 1-year-old institute is the new face of another industry that has sprung up in the area - the one that has set out to try to prove evolution is wrong.

This is my second attempt to engage in person with scientists at Biologic. At the institute's other facility in nearby Fremont, researchers work at benches lined with fume hoods, incubators and microscopes - a typical scene in this up-and-coming biotech hub. Most of them there proved just as reluctant to speak with a New Scientist reporter.

The reticence cloaks an unorthodox agenda. "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design," says George Weber, the only one of Biologic's four directors who would speak openly with me. "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." Weber is not a scientist but a retired professor of business and administration at the Presbyterian Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He heads the Spokane chapter of Reasonstobelieve.org, a Christian organisation that seeks to challenge Darwinism.

The anti-evolution movement's latest response to Darwin is intelligent design (ID). Its fundamental premise is that certain features of living organisms are too complex to have evolved without the direct intervention of an intelligent designer. In ID literature that designer remains cautiously anonymous, but for many proponents he corresponds closely with the God of the Christian Bible. Over the past few years the movement's media-savvy public face has been the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has championed intelligent design, claiming it to be a legitimate scientific theory, and supported its key architects. It was Discovery that provided the funding to get the Biologic Institute up and running.

Last week I learned that following his communication with New Scientist, Weber has left the board of the Biologic Institute. Douglas Axe, the lab's senior researcher and spokesman, told me in an email that Weber "was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it". Axe's portrayal of the Biologic Institute's purpose excludes religious connotation. He says that the lab's main objective "is to show that the design perspective can lead to better science", although he allows that the Biologic Institute will "contribute substantially to the scientific case for intelligent design".

This science-first message suggests that the developing anti-evolution movement in the US has moved on to a new stage - one in which opponents of evolutionary biology, trained as research scientists, take to the lab in search of the creator's handiwork. In light of recent events, it also makes sense as a public relations strategy.
ID was dealt a significant blow when parents in the Dover school district of Pennsylvania successfully challenged the right of school board officials to introduce pro-ID material into high school biology classrooms. In December 2005, US federal court judge John Jones ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach ID in public schools because it would violate the separation of church and state as laid out in the First Amendment (New Scientist, 7 January, p 8).

In addition to its religious undertones, ID had not "been the subject of testing and research", Jones stated, nor had it "generated peer-reviewed publications", and so had no business in science classes. Wary of losing similar court cases, at least four state education boards subsequently rejected or removed ID-friendly language from their high-school curricula, or are expected do so when newly elected members take office next year.

These developments underscored ID's most serious weakness. "The criticism that has been levelled against them most frequently is that they talk about science but they don't do science," says Richard Olmstead, a biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle who has spoken out against the teaching of ID in science classes.

Research agenda
The message is clear. If ID supporters can bolster their case by citing more experimental research, another judge at some future date might conclude that ID does qualify as science, and is therefore a legitimate topic for discussion in American science classrooms. This is precisely the kind of scientific respectability that research at the Biologic Institute is attempting to provide. "We need all the input we can get in the sciences," Weber told me. "What we are doing is necessary to move ID along."
Axe appears to be one of the prime movers in this latest version of the anti-evolution enterprise. In a Discovery Institute strategy paper that was leaked on the internet in 1999, Axe is identified as heading up a molecular biology programme that has the aim of undercutting the scientific basis for evolution. At that time he was funded by the Discovery Institute and working as a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for Protein Engineering, a research centre in Cambridge, UK, funded by the Medical Research Council, under the supervision of protein specialist Alan Fersht of the University of Cambridge.

Fersht says he did not at first know about the Discovery Institute's support for ID. "People do work in labs on external funding. Basically he [Axe] had a fellowship from what I thought was a bona fide research institute," he says. When another researcher in his lab pointed to the Discovery Institute's agenda and suggested that Axe be asked to leave, Fersht refused. "I have always been fairly easy-going about people working in the lab. I said I was not going to throw him out. What he was doing was asking legitimate questions about how a protein folded."

In 2000 Axe published a paper about protein mutations (Journal of Molecular Biology, vol 301, p 585). The paper itself makes no mention of ID, but William Dembski, a philosopher and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, cites it as peer-reviewed evidence for ID (see "Building a case").

By 2002 it was becoming clear that Axe and Fersht were in dispute with each other over the implications of work going on in Fersht's lab. At the time Fersht was preparing to publish a retraction of a paper in which he and three colleagues had claimed to have caused one enzyme to evolve the functionality of another (Nature, vol 403, p 617). Axe interpreted the fact that problems had surfaced with the result as evidence that there were problems with the theory of evolution. "I described to Alan preliminary results of mine that seemed to challenge the ability of spontaneous mutations to produce proteins with fundamentally new structures, and I suggested that the struggling projects under his direction might actually be pointing to the same conclusion," Axe told me in an email. Fersht disagreed with the suggestion. The problem result "didn't show anything of the sort", he says. "It showed there were inadequacies in our knowledge."

In March 2002, Axe left Fersht's lab to work as a visiting scientist at the structural biology unit of the Babraham Institute, also in Cambridge. His work there, again funded by the Discovery Institute, led to the publication of a second paper in 2004 (Journal of Molecular Biology, vol 341, p 1295) that was again cited by ID proponents as evidence in its favour.

Since 2004 Axe has resurfaced in Washington state, where he has set up shop at the Biologic Institute, a short drive away from the Discovery Institute. Weber told me that Biologic was a "branch of Discovery". Both Axe and Discovery spokesperson Rob Crowther insist that it is a "separate entity".

Biologic's staff consists of at least three researchers, including Ann Gauger, who like Axe signed a petition titled "a statement of dissent against Darwin's theory of evolution" that was organised by the Discovery Institute in September 2005. In 1985 Gauger published a paper on cell adhesion in fruit flies (Nature, vol 313, p 395) while completing a PhD from the University of Washington, and then went on to publish more papers as a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University. Her former supervisor, Larry Goldstein, now at the University of California, San Diego, expressed surprise when he learned of her association with the anti-evolution movement.

Gauger would not speak to New Scientist about her work. According to Axe, the projects currently under way at Biologic include "examining the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds".

Certainly the topics Axe mentions are of interest to science, says Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who testified as an expert witness for the pro-evolution side at the Dover trial. Miller adds that they might be of particular interest to people intent on undermining evolution if, like Axe's earlier work on protein folding, they can be used to highlight structures and functions whose origins and evolution are not well understood.

In addition to protein and cell biology, Biologic is pursuing a programme in computational biology which draws on the expertise of another of its researchers, Brendan Dixon, a former software developer at Microsoft. According to Axe, "On the computational side, we are nearing completion of a system for exploring the evolution of artificial genes that are considerably more life-like than has been the case previously."

Dixon also declined to speak with New Scientist, but there are reasons why the computational arena might be of interest to the anti-evolution movement. Starting in 2001, Robert Pennock at Michigan State University in East Lansing and colleagues wrote a computer program that behaves like a self-replicating organism able to mutate unpredictably and evolve (Nature, vol 423, p 139). The experiment demonstrates how natural selection and random mutation give rise to increasingly complex organisms.

For anti-evolutionists, this was a discouraging result. "That one really got to them," says Barbara Forrest, a philosopher at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond who studies the anti-evolution movement. It would not be surprising if Biologic wanted to challenge the impact of Pennock's work by finding a counter-example in which a computer simulation fails to produce complexity by random mutation alone. Such a counter-example, once published, would be available for citation by proponents of ID. Even if the citations do not appear in peer-reviewed literature, says Forrest, they could still have an influence on politicians and school board officials, who might not be sensitive to this distinction.

Miller agrees that work of this kind would help anti-evolutionists politically. "If Axe can produce a few more papers in good journals they will be able to cite a growing body of evidence favouring ID," he says.

However, Steve Fuller, a sociologist at the University of Warwick, UK, who testified in favour of ID in the Dover trial, believes the Biologic Institute's activities could help break down barriers between religious people and scientists. "Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab."

Ronald Numbers, a historian at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has studied creationism, views it in a different light. The lab's existence will help sustain support within the anti-evolution community, he says. "It will be good for the troops if leaders in the ID movement can claim: 'We're not just talking theory. We have labs, we have real scientists working on this.'"


Building a case
While researching protein structure at various institutes in the UK, Douglas Axe, now at the Biologic Institute in Redmond, Washington, published two peer-reviewed papers that are cited by anti-evolutionists as evidence that intelligent design is backed by serious science.

"Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors" Journal of Molecular Biology, vol 301, p 585.

#What it reports: Inducing multiple mutations in a bacterial enzyme causes it to lose its ability to perform its role as an antibiotic disabler.
#How ID proponents use it: Because such mutations destroy "the possibility of any functioning" in the enzyme, it could not have arisen via "Darwinian pathways" (William Dembski, from Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, Cambridge University Press, p 327).
#What scientists say: Major modifications can be made to proteins without destroying function. Also, making many mutations at once is different to gradual evolution, where dud mutations get weeded out.


"Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds" Journal of Molecular Biology, vol 341, p 1295.

#What it reports: Calculates the probability that a random sequence of amino acids will result in the folded shape that a protein needs to function as an enzyme.
#How ID proponents use it: The probability of creating a functioning protein fold "at random" is very low, making "appeals to chance absurd, even granting the duration of the entire universe" (Stephen Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, vol 117, p 213).
#What scientists say the vast majority of protein folds probably evolved via alteration of other smaller functional amino acid chains.
Randomness is strong with this one!

User avatar
Ire
Phd In Horribleness
Posts: 6638
Joined: 04 Aug 2003, 18:51
Location: Zagreb

Unread post by Ire » 21 Feb 2007, 11:51

ti stvarno znaš uljepšati dan :x
Instant Geek. Just Add Coffee.

User avatar
Xaotix
The Source
Posts: 2701
Joined: 19 Apr 2005, 12:55
Location: Schrodingerova kutija

Unread post by Xaotix » 22 Feb 2007, 00:15

Uljepšavanje lupanjem glavom u zid? :)
Randomness is strong with this one!

User avatar
Izitpajn
Shai-Hulud
Posts: 3859
Joined: 10 Nov 2003, 17:42
Location: Sesvete Republjik
Contact:

Unread post by Izitpajn » 22 Feb 2007, 09:19

Pa, neke to uljepša...

Post Reply