Umro najpoznatiji guru na svetu - Sai Baba

[Душко Дугоушко]

First and foremost, I want to say that I think that those who posit an opposition between science and religion, as if the two were in conflict, are being ridiculous and absurd. Pseudo-theology and pseudo-science...

To all appearances, the earth is billions of years old. Volcanoes, rock layers, fossils, the light visible on earth from stars certain distances away, and numerous other scientific observations all point to an earth that is very, very old, certainly much older than 6000 years. Scripture affirms that God is not a liar (see Titus 1:2 and 1 Corinthians 14:33). Young Earth Creationism seems to have a neo-Gnostic streak. This neo-Gnostic tendency is to be expected, given Young Earth Creationism's origins among Calvinists and semi-Calvinists, Calvinism being a neo-Gnostic movement itself. The neo-Gnostic tendency in Young Earth Creationism is perhaps most obvious in the often (rightfully) mocked assertion that "I didn't come from monkeys." Questions of the inaccuracy of this silly statement aside, its very presence in and use by Young Earth Creationist adherents seems to me to indicate neo-Gnostic tendencies. Why else would there need be an adamant denial that man is part of the system of life on earth? Even if we reject Young Earth Creationism in favor of, for instance, Intelligent Design or so-called Old Earth Creationism, these alternatives are still very, very problematic. Associating any particular scientific theory too closely with the Christian faith is very dangerous. Blessed Augustine of Hippo, writing in his Confessions in the fifth century, raised this point very early on in Christian history. The Manichaeans, a syncretist Gnostic sect with which he had been affiliated before his conversion to Orthodox Christianity, had incorporated points of ancient Greek astronomy and cosmology into their dogmatic system; by Aureliuse's day much of this older Greek science had been discredited and replaced with more up to date understandings of the earth and the universe. As Saint Augustine continued in his secular education and learned that the Manicahaeans were teaching incorrect ideas about science, he came to question their religious ideas also; if they are so wrong about the stars, the sun, the moon and the earth, he reasoned rightly, how can they possibly be right about lofty and complex concepts like God, the afterlife, and spirituality? I wonder what Saint Augustine would say about those Christians today who teach certain pseudo-sciences alongside the dogmas of the Christian faith. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis that would be fine for New Agers and UFO-logists, but it's preposterous for Christians. Both absurdly rejection of scientific advancement in favor of some clearly incorrect understanding of the world as Young Earth Creationists and frantically trying to "prove God" with science as many supporters of Intelligent Design seem to do are most definitely unacceptable for Orthodox Christians. Both are the product of an understanding of the Scriptures that is in conflict with the ancient Christian understanding and both are serious threats to the continued life of the Christian faith. Orthodox Christians must avoid falling into the frameworks, and so the pitfalls and, inevitably, the heresies, of the West; both Creationism and Intelligent Design stem from a uniquely anti-Orthodox framework. Let us see the Patristic answer to all of this. Vladimir Lossky, in his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, explains that "the theology of the Orthodox Church, constantly soteriological in its emphasis, has never entered into alliance with philosophy in any attempt at a doctrinal synthesis." In fact, "having no philosophical preferences, the Church always freely makes use of philosophy and the sciences for apologetic purposes, but she never has any cause to defend these relative and changing truths as she defends the unchangeable truth of her doctrines." This point, I think, is indispensable for a truly Orthodox Christian understanding of and relationship with modern science. Modern science is not a threat to Orthodox Christianity any more than was ancient Greek science, which similarly ran contrary to a literalist interpretation of the Genesis account. Though The Church Fathers used the science of their day, as they were most educated men of their time; but Christianity's focus is salvation, not explanations for the origins of and events within the natural world. Because science is not and cannot be a threat to Christianity, we must also not shy away from any aspect of the modern scientific understandings of the universe. I have heard some people claim, for instance, that they are willing to accept evolution but not that humans evolved from apes because "humans are different." I see no reason to reject evolutionary theory. Unlike so many of our Western brothers, Orthodox Christians are not Platonists. We do not believe that the material world is inherently evil or that it is anything less than "good," the term which God used to describe each aspect of his creation in the Genesis account. Not only that, but matter has been redeemed and even sanctified; this was one of the main arguments put forward by Saint John Damascene and the other Orthodox defenders of the Holy Icons and Relics of the Saints against the iconoclasts in the eighth and ninth centuries. We do not believe that man entered the world from somewhere else, as in the Origenist scheme of the pre-existence of souls; we affirm, along with the Genesis account, that man was created from the dust of this very earth. We also do not believe that man is going to die and leave this material world behind forever; according to Orthodox Christian eschatology, the end of the age comes with the resurrection of the body. Indeed, man has been, is, and always will be a part of this world. There's absolutely no reason to reject the evolutionary concept of common descent nor man's part in that common ancestry of all living things on earth. Affirming common descent is entirely compatible with affirming the biblical account of creation. If anything, I think it could be argued that common descent only serves to illuminate and magnify the Orthodox Christian understanding of man's origins, man's goal, and man's place in the world. Our work as Christians is the redemption and sanctification of the world; I can think of no more beautiful example of this than the priest's lifting of the unconsecrated bread and wine while he intones "thine own of thine own we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all" during the Divine Liturgy. We are both created from the dust of the earth and also created in the image and likeness of God. Common descent only, I believe, adds a further and beautiful dimension to this understanding. The job of the Church and even, I would dare say, of the individual Christian is not to try to reconcile Genesis with Darwin or to formulate some new, theistic explanation for evolutionary processes. The job of the Christian is to declare Jesus Christ crucified and risen. The job of Christians is to check the pride of man by reminding him that he will one day have to give an account before the dread judgment seat of the Lord and to uplift him by reminding him that life is not meaningless and that we are not alone. God has a purpose for us - human life has meaning - and God is still "Emmanuel," God with us.

[Душко Дугоушко]

Mislim da jednom doktoru hemije ako ne gresim ne pristaje Stojadinovicev recnik. Mada kad malo bolje

razmislim i nema neke velike razlike medju vama

Kako nema???

Ivica i ja nismo debeli, pripadamo Coca Cola lozi a Pedja pripada Fanta lozi. Ja i Ivica volim pivo i kafanu

a Pedja se grozi alkohola. Gde nema razlike covece. :cheesy:

A значи константинопољски патријарх Вартоломеј је ваш епископ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0PSYG30BRY

[grigorije22]

[Аурор]

Iste ove lazi je ponavljao i na krstarici,tj.da ne mozemo da objasnimo nastanak oko 20 000 gena izmedju bakterije i coveka.

Nikakve mutacije ne mogu da dovedu do povećanja genetske informacije.

Duplikacije koje evolucionisti spominju su najčešće nestabilne i čim popusti dejstvo npr. antibiotika duplikacija prestaje. Duplikacijom se samo već postojeća informacija tj. gen duplira, nema stvaranja nove informacije.

Niko nije rekao da  novi gen nastaje samo procesom duplikacije,vec i kasnijom mutacijom na jednoj od kopija gena.Tako imamo i stari gen,kao i novi,mutirani.Ne znam sta je tu toliko komplikovano da se shvati.

Neka dobro znaju da se nigdje MAKROevolucija ne može dokazati.

Itekako je dokazano,jer veliki broj naucnih disciplina upicuje na jedan zakljucak-da svi imamo zajednicko poreklo.

Itd.itd...

I gde je na linku koji si postavio odgovor na moje pitanje sta je uzrok,tj.sta ogranicava mikroevoluciju?

Evo da ti pomognem,kao i njima:Ono sto ogranicava mikroevoluciju je... fmqmtx

Glavni problem je sto vi ne shvatate da prihvatajuci mikroevoluciju,neminovno prihvatate i makroevoluciju,jer je isti mehanizam i u jednom i u drugom slucaju.Dakle,ukoliko uslovi u nekoj sredini to budu zahtevali,ziva bica ce neminovno nastojati da se prilagode da bi prezivela.To nije stvar izbora.

Gluposti i neznanje. Prvo, ne kaže se duplikacija nego replikacija, drugo, replikacija je ono što obezbeđuje u ćelijskim deobama somatskih i nezrelih polnih ćelija održavanje diploidnosti, ne shvatam kakve to veze ima sa evolucijom. I koja bre MIKRO i MAKRO evolucija? Hahahah. Postoji EVOLUCIJA i to je to.

Da, čekaj, replikacijom ne nastaje nikakav gen, odakle ti to?

Ma daj, treba da pričaš o ovakvim stvarima sa ljudima koji pojma nemaju ni šta je npr. Hardi-Vajnbergov princip, jedino da nešto izguglaju na brzinu i da saznaju iz kojekakvih pamfleta kao što i sve ostalo znaju površno, nesistematski, slabo i iz nekih glupih pamfleta, YouTube klipova i pseudo-tekstova. Forumi su gadni upravo zbog ovakvih ljudi i ovakvog znanja.

[grigorije22]

Mozda ovde ima odgovor

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=75.0

Ne,nema.

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=348.0

[Sherlock H.]

Mozda ovde ima odgovor

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=75.0

Ne,nema.

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=348.0

Ok,i gde je tu odgovor na moje pitanje?

[grigorije22]

Mozda ovde ima odgovor

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=75.0

Ne,nema.

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=348.0

Ok,i gde je tu odgovor na moje pitanje?

Ovde ima odgovora na mnoga pitanja pa cik neka ih nasi pravoslavni strucnjaci ospore

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=393.0

Naravno kao sto si video na linku lepo pise da ce da nastavi ne moze covek sve da postigne

[grigorije22]

Petre M dodji pa postavi pitanja nasem strucnjaku Lindemannu nije valjda da se plasis

[Sherlock H.]

Iste ove lazi je ponavljao i na krstarici,tj.da ne mozemo da objasnimo nastanak oko 20 000 gena izmedju bakterije i coveka.

Nikakve mutacije ne mogu da dovedu do povećanja genetske informacije.

Duplikacije koje evolucionisti spominju su najčešće nestabilne i čim popusti dejstvo npr. antibiotika duplikacija prestaje. Duplikacijom se samo već postojeća informacija tj. gen duplira, nema stvaranja nove informacije.

Niko nije rekao da  novi gen nastaje samo procesom duplikacije,vec i kasnijom mutacijom na jednoj od kopija gena.Tako imamo i stari gen,kao i novi,mutirani.Ne znam sta je tu toliko komplikovano da se shvati.

Neka dobro znaju da se nigdje MAKROevolucija ne može dokazati.

Itekako je dokazano,jer veliki broj naucnih disciplina upicuje na jedan zakljucak-da svi imamo zajednicko poreklo.

Itd.itd...

I gde je na linku koji si postavio odgovor na moje pitanje sta je uzrok,tj.sta ogranicava mikroevoluciju?

Evo da ti pomognem,kao i njima:Ono sto ogranicava mikroevoluciju je...

Glavni problem je sto vi ne shvatate da prihvatajuci mikroevoluciju,neminovno prihvatate i makroevoluciju,jer je isti mehanizam i u jednom i u drugom slucaju.Dakle,ukoliko uslovi u nekoj sredini to budu zahtevali,ziva bica ce neminovno nastojati da se prilagode da bi prezivela.To nije stvar izbora.

Gluposti i neznanje. Prvo, ne kaže se duplikacija nego replikacija, drugo, replikacija je ono što obezbeđuje u ćelijskim deobama somatskih i nezrelih polnih ćelija održavanje diploidnosti, ne shvatam kakve to veze ima sa evolucijom. I koja bre MIKRO i MAKRO evolucija? Hahahah. Postoji EVOLUCIJA i to je to.

Da, čekaj, replikacijom ne nastaje nikakav gen, odakle ti to?

Ma daj, treba da pričaš o ovakvim stvarima sa ljudima koji pojma nemaju ni šta je npr. Hardi-Vajnbergov princip, jedino da nešto izguglaju na brzinu i da saznaju iz kojekakvih pamfleta kao što i sve ostalo znaju površno, nesistematski, slabo i iz nekih glupih pamfleta, YouTube klipova i pseudo-tekstova. Forumi su gadni upravo zbog ovakvih ljudi i ovakvog znanja.

Dplikacija,replikacija,svejedno.Koristi se npr.ovde.  http://teorijaevolucije.com/uvod2.html

I to nema bas drektne veze sa evolucijom,nego sa njihovom tvrdnjom da je nemoguce da nastane oko 25 000 gena,koliko poseduje danasnji covek.Iz toga izvlace zakljucak kako je kreacionizam istinit.

Nisam rekao da duplikacijom ne nastaje novi gen,vec ista kopija,koja dozivljava mutaciju.

Sto se tice izraza mirko i makroevolucija,ja sam ih sretao mnogo puta.

[Sherlock H.]

Petre M dodji pa postavi pitanja nasem strucnjaku Lindemannu nije valjda da se plasis

Da,toliko se plasim coveka koji jedino sto moze da uradi jeste da kopira textove.

Od tripo-a nisam trazio da razvija celu diskusiju,vec da odgovori na moje veoma jednostavno i kratko pitanje.Sva ova njegova razglabanja o mikro/makroevoluciji su nebitna,i to predstavlja samo skretanje sa glavnog pitanja.

I da,necu doci.Ukoliko neko kod vas odgovori,slobodno mozes da preneses odgovor,kao sto si i do sada cinio(sem sto tripo nije nista odgovorio).

Inace,pitanje koje si postavio meni,bolje postavi tripu.Ja,za razliku od njega,nisam pobegao iz diskusije.To ti je dovoljan pokazatelj koliko on poznaje biologiju,cim ne zna da odogovori na moje pitanje,koji jedva da znam nesto.

[Sherlock H.]

Mozda ovde ima odgovor

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=75.0

Ne,nema.

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=348.0

Ok,i gde je tu odgovor na moje pitanje?

Ovde ima odgovora na mnoga pitanja pa cik neka ih nasi pravoslavni strucnjaci ospore

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=393.0

Naravno kao sto si video na linku lepo pise da ce da nastavi ne moze covek sve da postigne

Ako smem da pitam,u kakvoj su vezi endogeni retrovirusi sa mojim pitanjem?

Da tripo zna da odgovori,odgovorio bi jos pre nekoliko meseci na krstarici.

[grigorije22]

Petre M dodji pa postavi pitanja nasem strucnjaku Lindemannu nije valjda da se plasis

Da,toliko se plasim coveka koji jedino sto moze da uradi jeste da kopira textove.

Od tripo-a nisam trazio da razvija celu diskusiju,vec da odgovori na moje veoma jednostavno i kratko pitanje.Sva ova njegova razglabanja o mikro/makroevoluciji su nebitna,i to predstavlja samo skretanje sa glavnog pitanja.

I da,necu doci.Ukoliko neko kod vas odgovori,slobodno mozes da preneses odgovor,kao sto si i do sada cinio(sem sto tripo nije nista odgovorio).

Inace,pitanje koje si postavio meni,bolje postavi tripu.Ja,za razliku od njega,nisam pobegao iz diskusije.To ti je dovoljan pokazatelj koliko on poznaje biologiju,cim ne zna da odogovori na moje pitanje,koji jedva da znam nesto.

Lindemann je molekularni i mikrobilog i nema veza sa tripom. Drugo to sto pricas da je pobegao sa rasprave je klasicno ateisticko podmetanje, ono na krstarici se pretvorilo u puko prepucavanje i covek se smorio

[grigorije22]

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=75.15

[Sherlock H.]

Petre M dodji pa postavi pitanja nasem strucnjaku Lindemannu nije valjda da se plasis

Da,toliko se plasim coveka koji jedino sto moze da uradi jeste da kopira textove.

Od tripo-a nisam trazio da razvija celu diskusiju,vec da odgovori na moje veoma jednostavno i kratko pitanje.Sva ova njegova razglabanja o mikro/makroevoluciji su nebitna,i to predstavlja samo skretanje sa glavnog pitanja.

I da,necu doci.Ukoliko neko kod vas odgovori,slobodno mozes da preneses odgovor,kao sto si i do sada cinio(sem sto tripo nije nista odgovorio).

Inace,pitanje koje si postavio meni,bolje postavi tripu.Ja,za razliku od njega,nisam pobegao iz diskusije.To ti je dovoljan pokazatelj koliko on poznaje biologiju,cim ne zna da odogovori na moje pitanje,koji jedva da znam nesto.

Lindemann je molekularni i mikrobilog i nema veza sa tripom. Drugo to sto pricas da je pobegao sa rasprave je klasicno ateisticko podmetanje, ono na krstarici se pretvorilo u puko prepucavanje i covek se smorio

Ok,ako zna neka odgovori.

Pretpostavljam da se smorio i na fejsu.

E,vidis,da se ja ne bih sad smorio ponavljajuci jedno te isto pitanje,budi ljubazan i odgovori.

[Sherlock H.]

http://sestodnev.com/smf_forum/index.php?topic=75.15

?