Kako je unisten Inteligentni Dizajn u USA, predavanje Kennetha Millera

[Млађони]

vec si uzeo sav tekst, pomislio da je to kreacionisticko smece i onako napamet napisao kvazi nauka?

Ma ti mene opet zajebavas. Napises po neku provokatorsku recenicu, kopiras kilometarske glupave tekstove, bezis sa teme... etc...

[Млађони]

Nije to bilo pitanje al kao ne znas, ok

Molgu i ja jednom tebi da ne odgovorim na pitanje koje postavljas. Ti vec x strana ne odgovaras na pitanja koja tep itamo.

Malo verovatno je slabo reci.

Verovatnoca za sve sto se desilo je 1:1.

Nije pitanje kako je nastala, nego zasto ima vrednost koju ima, ti ne verujes u visu silu jedino ti ostaje da nauka ,,dokaze,, da je to moglo da nastane sucajno.

Apsolutno jeste pitanje KAKO.

I koju vrednost ima.

I zasto.

Ne vec se racuna verovatnoca.

Opet ti kazem za nesto sto se desilo verovatnoca je 1:1.

Glupo je racunati verovatnocu i preko nje dokazivati bil osta.

Statistika nije dokazivanje.

Ti uporno tvrdis nesto drugo, o toj tvojoj teoriji drugih oblika zivota i drugacijih univerzuma sam ti odgovorio, ja mislio da ti kao ateista svoju veru zasnivas samo na dokazima.

naravno da zasnivam samo na dokazima, a statistika u kosmologiji bas i nije neki dokaz.

Ne znam ko je ovde tvrdoglav, jesam ti citirao hokinga? koja je to druga strana ako ne hoking?

I jos tvrdis da nisam ni citao drugu stranu. nek drugi procene.

Iskreno nism procitao, al po verovatnoci si 100 % citirao izvrnut citat ili ga izvukao iz konteksta ko do sad.

uzgred nisi ga ti citorao nego tvorac teksta ja ovde pricam sa tobom.

Ne vidim tu nikakav problem.

ja vidim da je univerzum od bliion i bilion galaksija koje broje bilione i bilione zvezda od kojih svaka zvezda broji po nekoliko planeta, na ogromonom prostoru, u univerzumu stvorenom pre 16 biliona godina nastalom samo za LJUDE. Ti tu ne vidis problem jer si ... ne smme da kazem banovace me

Nece, i univerzum ce umreti jednom hladna il topla smrt kako god.

Ovaj, kad univerzum umre (ako je ta pretpostavka tacna) ljudi nece postojati tad. Nece mu biti na sahrani.

Dakle OCE, univerzum ce ziveti mnogo posle ljudi.

I to je argument za sta?

Za to da ovaj univerzum nije stvoren za ljudske egomanijake koji misle da je sve stovreno za njih pa nekom statistikom pokushavaju da dokazu AHA DA NIJE OVAKO MI NE BI SMO POSTOJALI KOJE SU SANSE ZA TO CIM JE OVAKO MALO TO ZNACI DA JE ZA NAS STVORENO.

[Млађони]

A evo imam i ja tekstove na kopiranje:

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Misuse of probability by “creation scientists”

By David H Bailey, on August 13th, 2009

It often comes as a shock to professional scientists to learn that a large fraction of the public rejects much if not all of the evolutionary framework of modern geology and biology. For example, in a recent poll, 44% of Americans surveyed agreed that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years [Gallup]. Another indication of the popularity of this worldview, often termed “young-earth creationism”, is the fact that over 700,000 Americans have attended the “Creation Museum” near Cincinnati, Ohio since its opening in 1977. Displays at the museum insist the world was created in the past 10,000 years, and depict, for instance, dinosaurs co-existing with prehistoric humans.

A related development is the recent emergence of the “intelligent design” (ID) movement, which generally acknowledges the old-earth framework, but still insists that evolution can only produce minor changes within established “kinds” (species), which “kinds” were individually created by an intelligent Designer. Both movements have a dedicated cadre of writers, including at least some with respectable academic credentials, who generate books, articles and Internet posts criticizing conventional scientific research and asserting that scientific evidence confirms their point of view.

Both traditional creationists and ID scholars have invoked probability theory in criticisms of evolution. One typical argument goes like this: the human alpha globin molecule, which plays a key oxygen transfer function, is a protein chain based on a sequence of 141 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids common in living systems, so the number of potential chains of length 141 is 20^(141), which is roughly 10^(183). This figure is so enormous, so these writers argue, that even after billions of years of random molecular trials, no alpha globin protein molecule would ever appear [Foster, pg. 79-83; Hoyle, pg. 1-20; Lennox, pg. 163-173].

But the above argument fails to note that most of the 141 amino acids can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function. When we revise the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function, we obtain 10^(33) fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10^(183), and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [bailey].

More importantly, this and almost all similar probability-based arguments against evolution suffer from the fallacy of presuming that biological structures such as alpha globin arise by a single all-or-nothing random trial. Instead, available evidence suggests that alpha globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. Probability calculations such as the above, which do not take into account the process by which the structure came to be, are not meaningful and can easily mislead [Musgrave].

Along this line, consider snowflakes. Bentley and Humphrey’s book Snow Crystals [bentley] includes over 2000 high-resolution black-and-white photos of real snowflakes, each with intricate yet highly regular patterns (a few of the Bentley-Humphrey photos are posted at Online article). The chances that one particular structure, with striking near-perfect 6-way symmetry, can form “at random” can be calculated as roughly one part in 10^(2500). Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed? Obviously not. The fallacy, once again, is presuming a sudden, all-at-once random formation. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.

ID scholar William Dembski invokes probability and information theory (the mathematical theory of information content in data) in arguments against Darwinism. But knowledgeable scholars who have examined Dembski’s works are not persuaded and have been sharply critical. Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit (a colleague of the present bloggers) and biologist Wesley Elsberry conclude that Dembski’s notion of “complex specified information” is incoherent and unworkable [shallit]. Biologist Gert Korthof, in a review of Dembski’s book Intelligent Design, concludes that Dembski’s analysis cannot be meaningfully applied to DNA [Korthof]. Mathematician Richard Wein, in a review of Dembski’s book No Free Lunch, characterizes it as “pseudoscientific rhetoric” [Wein].

One central issue in this debate is the question of evolutionary novelty. The consensus of modern scientific research is that mutation and natural selection together can produce novel, beneficial features in biological systems. Scientists further postulate that this low-level novelty extends to entire populations, which can, over time (typically thousands of years), become entirely separate species. On the other hand, creationist and ID scholars have insisted that whereas minor changes may occur within an established kind, nothing fundamentally new can come through “random” evolution. For example, Dembski asserts that there is a “Law of Conservation of Information” that prohibits the generation of novel features [Dembski].

Ample and well-established experimental evidence supports the scientific view. For example, in a 1974 paper by biologists Barry Hall and Daniel Hartl, a gene was identified in the bacterium E. coli that is responsible for metabolizing lactose, using a complicated three-part process. They removed this gene, and then permitted the bacteria to multiply in a stressed environment containing lactose. Within 24 hours the bacteria had evolved a capability to utilize lactose, by means of a similar but distinct three-part biochemical pathway, involving two mutated genes [Hall; Miller, 1999, pg. 145-147].

In another interesting result along this line, Japanese biologists recently discovered a bacterial species that has adapted to thrive on nylon waste (which did not exist until the 20th century). It turns out that this bacterial species has undergone a “frame shift” mutation, where an extra base pair has been inserted into the bacteria’s DNA. This mutation significantly changed the bacteria’s biology, since a long series of amino acids were altered, but by remarkable chance this alteration endowed the bacteria with the facility to metabolize nylon, albeit not very efficiently [Negoro].

As a third example, scientists recently discovered that certain persons in an Italian community, all descended from a single individual several generations back, possess a genetic mutation that increases “good” cholesterol and provides an effective anti-oxidant, thus resulting in measurably improved cardiovascular health [Krotz]. Dozens of other examples could be cited.

In short, the probability arguments used by the creationist and ID movements, when analyzed carefully, are fallacious, and are simply countered by the observation that natural evolution, operating in the real world, does in fact produce novel features.

It is truly unfortunate that fundamentalist adherents of some of the world’s great religious movements feel it necessary to “prove” God by means of fallacious mathematical arguments. It is also unfortunate that the creationist and ID communities have been so stubborn to accept the overwhelming consensus of modern science, namely that the world is governed by elegant and comprehensible physical laws. But the scientific and mathematical communities are also at fault in failing to better educate the public as to both the reality of evolution and the failings of creationist/ID scholarship.

References:

1. [bailey] David H. Bailey, “Evolution and Probability,” Report of the National Center for Science Education, vol. 20 (2000), no. 4, also available from Online article.
   
2. [bentley] W. A. Bentley and W. J. Humphreys, Snow Crystals, Dover Publications, New York, 1962.
   
3. [Dembski]William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1999.
   
4. [Foster]David Foster, The Philosophical Scientists, Marboro Books, New York, 1991.
   
5. [Gallup] Gallup Poll, 8-11 May 2008, available at Online article.
   
6. [Hall] Barry G. Hall and Daniel L. Hartl, “Regulation of Newly Evolved Enzymes,” Genetics, vol. 76 (1974), pg. 391-400.
   
7. [Hoyle] Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism, J. M. Dent and Sons, London, 1981.
   
8. [Korthof] Gert Korthof, “On the Origin of Information by Means of Intelligent Design: A Review of William Dembski’s Intelligent Design,” available at Online article.
   
9. [Kotz] Dan Krotz, “The Milano Mutation: A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope for Heart Disease Patients,” available at Online article.
   
10. [Lennox ]John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, Lion UK, 2009.
    
11. [Miller] Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, HarperCollins, New York, 1999.
    
12. [Musgrave] Ian Musgrave, “Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations,” 1998, available at Online article.
    
13. [Negoro] S. Negoro, K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada, “The Nylon Oligomer Biodegradation System of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas,” Biodegradation, vol. 5 (1994), pg. 185-194.
    
14. [shallit] Jeffrey Shallit and Wesley Elsberry, “Playing Games with Probability: Dembski’s Complex Specified Information,” in Matt Young and Taner Edis, ed., Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, NJ, 2004, pg. 121-138.
    
15. [Wein] Richard Wein, “Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A Critique of William Dembski’s Book No Free Lunch,” available at Online article.
    

Essays

[Млађони]

pa evo josh malo za winuxa.

What's Wrong With Creationist Probability?

Share

Email

Print

- / John Allen Paulos is the author of best-selling books including "Innumeracy" and "A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market." His "Who's Counting?" column on ABCNews.com appears the first weekend of every month.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2384584&page=2#.Tw3PyMjlbEk

[winux59]

ne ti me definitivno zezas sad

sve vrednosti koje sam naveo u vezi naseg kosmos su takve,

cinjenica je da bi najmanja promena bilo koje od njih dovela do rusenja univerzuma, jedinog za koji znamo,

i ti ona prelazis u svet maste, i kazes mozda postoji vise univerzuma, a ovaj nas je bas ovakav kakav jeste.

ili mozda bi zivot bio moguc u drugom univerzumu.

to nista nije odgovor na pitanje zasto ovako podesene vrednosti ne smatras dizajniranim?

eto to je pitanje.

A tek ovaj tekst sto si naveo mislim....

Koliko sam ja uspeo da shvatim tvoj odgovor je mi zivimo u slucajno podesenom univerzumu koji je eto pogodan za zivot, al eto mozda postoje jos univerzuma gde ne vaze isti zakoni fizike,

pa odakle zakoni fizike?

ako mene pitas ako postoji zakon, postoji i zakonodavac.

to sto ti navodis kao primere evolucije uopste to nisu, a uporno kritikujes ID a vecina ID su bivsi evolucionisti.

[winux59]

ja vidim da je univerzum od bliion i bilion galaksija koje broje bilione i bilione zvezda od kojih svaka zvezda broji po nekoliko planeta, na ogromonom prostoru, u univerzumu stvorenom pre 16 biliona godina nastalom samo za LJUDE. Ti tu ne vidis problem jer si ... ne smme da kazem banovace me

nije ti palo na pamet da pomislis da je univerzum manji da zivot na zemlji ne bi bio moguc?

[winux59]

Anthropic Principle: The Design Is In The Details.

Excerpt from “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”

by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.

Scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. A Planet with scores of improbable and inter-dependent life- supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe. The extent of the universe’s fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God.

These highly precise and interdependent environmental conditions (which are called “Anthropic Constants” make up what is known as the “Anthropic Principle.” “Anthropic” comes from the Greek word that means “human” or “man”. The “Anthropic Principal” is just a fancy title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing that the universe is extremely fine-tuned (designed) to support human life here on earth.

It’s not that there are just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants (122 in all) would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (I.e., without Divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking; one chance in 10138, that’s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it. There are only about 1070 atoms in the entire universe.

In effect, there zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all.

Here are fifteen of them.

Anthropic Constant 1: Oxygen Level

On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an Anthropic Constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25% fires would erupt spontaneously, if it were 15%, human beings would suffocate.

Anthropic Constant 2: Atmospheric Transparency

If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth’s surface. If it were more transparent we would be bombarded with far roo much solar radiation down here. (In addition to atmospheric transparency, the atmospheric composition of precise levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and ozone are in themselves Anthropic constants).

Anthropic Constant 3: Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction

If the interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.

Anthropic Constant 4: Carbon Dioxide level

If the CO2 level were higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we’d all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we’d all suffocate).

Anthropic Constant 5: Gravity

If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore neither would we. Talk about precision.

Anthropic Constant 6: Centrifugal Force

If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.

Anthropic Constant 7: Rate Of Expansion

If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.

Anthropic Constant 8: Speed Of Light

Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.

Anthropic Constant 9: Water Vapor Levels.If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life. If they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth to cold to support human life.

Anthropic Constant 10: Jupiter.

If Jupiter were not in it’s current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.

Anthropic Constant 11: The Earth’s Crust.

If the thickness of the earth’s crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.

Anthropic Constant 12: The Earth’s Rotation.

If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be to great.

Anthropic Constant 13: Axis Tilt.

The 23-degree axis tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.

Anthropic Constant 14: Atmospheric Discharge.

If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less there would be little nitrogen fixings in the soil.

Anthropic Constant 15: Seismic Activity.

If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there were less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. (yes, even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it).

[winux59]

i sve je to slucajno?

ili nije tacno?

[winux59]

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?.. Why is Only Earth Suitable for Life?

In his movie Signs, M. Night Shyamalan presents us with a priest (played by Mel Gibson) who has lost his faith. Through the death of his wife, the priest has come to the conclusion that life is random. He has decided that he will no longer pretend to see God in the picture.

As Shyamalan zooms in his lens, he shows us that life is without focus: there is no recognizable pattern. But typical of Shyamalan, he turns the lens one more screw to the right, and at this magnification a pattern emerges. Gibson’s character is able to see the hand of a great Designer lurking behind all that had seemed random. His wife’s dying words, his daughter’s obsession with water, his son’s asthma—everything served a larger purpose.

At the end Mel Gibson returns to the priesthood and makes a blockbuster called The Passion of the Christ. Well, not exactly, but his character comes full circle—from faith to skepticism and back to faith. Meanwhile, Shyamalan takes his audience on the same circuitous journey, exploring issues of design and higher purpose in the world.

In many ways the evidence for intelligent design of the universe has come full circle. When early humans looked at the heavens, they could not escape the concept of a Creator. In fact, until the 1500s, most people believed in the ancient astronomer Ptolemy’s teaching, that Earth was the center of the universe.

But, in the 16th century, Copernicus showed that Earth revolved around the Sun. Suddenly our planet seemed less special. Some astronomers looked out at the universe through telescopes and deduced a Creator was unnecessary. Their argument for a materialist worldview was energized by the belief in an ordinary Earth. Although the founders of modern astronomy strongly believed that the universe was the work of a cosmic genius, these later followers saw the cosmos as totally autonomous and independent of a Designer. Copernicus, a strong believer in God, couldn’t have disagreed more with such an assumption, and would have taken exception to it. In the 19th century, this belief in an ordinary Earth became popularized as the “Copernican Principle.” This principle has become the bedrock for a materialistic view of the world. However, new scientific discoveries are challenging its premise. In the latter part of the 20th century evidence began pouring in about the remarkable fitness of Earth for life, compelling many scientists to reconsider the obvious implication that an intelligent Designer is behind it all.

Scientists have learned that only an exceptionally fine-tuned planet like Earth has the necessary ingredients to harbor life. Additionally, our solar system and galaxy, as well as our entire universe, appear designed to support intelligent life.

The odds that such fine-tuning could have occurred by chance is not just unlikely–scientists say it is virtually impossible.

[winux59]

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.

[winux59]

http://www.inplainsi...pic_principles.

i dalje ces tvrditi da smo mi na beznacajnoj planeti na beznacajnom mestu u univerzumu?

[Млађони]

nije ti palo na pamet da pomislis da je univerzum manji da zivot na zemlji ne bi bio moguc?

Ajde ti winuxe lepo nama postavi tu tvoju teoriju, ali ti svojim recima bez kopiranja tudjih testovea, opisi nam kako je univerzum nastao, kako se zivot razvijo i posto verujes da je dizajniran ko ga je dizajnirao.

Za link, http://www.inplainsi...pic_principles. :

Not Found

The requested URL /html/anthropic_principles. was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

A evo ti malo prave naucne statistike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

To je isto ona psihopatologija koja ubedjuje neke da su srbi sveti narod.

[winux59]

When we revise the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function, we obtain 10^(33) fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10^(183)

hahaahah

joj dakle ako se to sto pise ispostavi tacno a ne sumnja da u nezavisnim naucnim medijima i hoce ispada da je sansa samo

1:10 00000000000000000000000000000000 vau, nista lakse

[Млађони]

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?.. Why is Only Earth Suitable for Life?

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh

ahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahh

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

ahhahahaha

http://www.se51.net/...table-for-life/

http://www.solstatio...m/habitable.htm

http://news.discovery.com/space/earth-like-planet-life.html

Ma ti si puko, a cu da nastavim da pricam sa tobom da ti izvucem josh koju ideju koju samo jako glup covek moze da prihvati pored "Sve galaksije kruze oko mlecnog puta"

Do " Zasto je jedino zemlja pogodna za zivot"

I josh mnogo planeta. Mnogo mnogo mnogo.

Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

[Млађони]

i sve je to slucajno?

ili nije tacno?

ne slucajno vec po zakonima fizike. Niko nigde ne kaze da je sve u univerzumu stvoreno slucajno vec da nije stvoreno od strane inteligentnog tvorca.

Problem je u terminu slucajno, seti se crepa. Slucajno je pao tako mi kazemo a pao je jer je imao uzrok t.j vetar koji je dunuo bas u tom trenutku bas na tom mestu kada je covekova glava bila bas taman tolika i bas na nju da padne pored svog praznog prostora oko njega.

To je problem sa tvojom statistikom i tvojom slucajnoscu.

Takodje je i problem sto nemas herca dap riznash da ti sve svoje teorije baziraz na unapred postavljenoj cinjenici da bog postoji i da nista niej sluchajno isto kao sto sam i ja i u svemu trazish i namestas matematiku da ti izgleda ka tvom argumentu. Kao i terminologiju.

Znash zasto ne veruje kompeltna nauka u tvoje teorije? Zato sto su oni imuni na ta izmisljotine, imaju antivirus u vidu naucnog metoda koji efikasno otlkanja sve bullshite tog tipa.

Druga stvar ne razlikujes slucajnost i shansu.