"Evolucija i Veliki prasak su lazi iz pakla"

[Odahviing]

E izvini što pitam ali znatiželjni koliko imaš godina 12,13,15,16???

[grigorije22]

Science Can No Longer Stomach Dinosaurs-to-Birds Theory

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

For decades now, the evolutionary community has been batting around the theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds (Thompson and Harrub, 2001). In fact, if you keep your ear to the ground about the latest scientific news and writings, you will still hear the theory being floated in various places. To bolster the theory, paleontologists have identified “fuzz” that surrounds some dinosaur fossils as “protofeather” material. Pictures of “feathered” dinosaurs have graced the covers of science magazines for years.

It just so happens, however, that though this theory is still out there, and is championed by many, it simply cannot be true. The fact of the matter is, we have found fully functional, flying, legitimately feathered (not “fuzz-covered”) birds that lived “millions of years” (using the inaccurate deep-time of evolution) before dinosaurs died out.

In August, 2012 in the open-access on-line biology journal, PLOS: Biology, Lida Xing and colleagues wrote an article titled “Abdominal Contents from Two Large Cretaceous Compsognathids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) Demonstrate Feeding on Confuciusornithids and Dromaeosaurids” (2012). That is a mouthful, but in laymen’s terms it simply means that the skeletons of two dinosaurs that lived during the “cretaceous” period ate a bird known as Confuciusornis sanctus. The two dinosaur fossils under consideration are recognized as Sinocalliopteryx gigas. According to evolutionary time, these dinosaurs lived about 120 million years ago. Yet the Confuciusornis sanctus found in the stomach of this creature was a “crow-size, flight-capable bird” (“Dinosaur Guts…,” 2012). One of the picture captions describes the stomach contents as “a tiny bird skeleton within the stomach of the dinosaur Sinocalliopteryx” (“Dinosaur Guts…”). Dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds because, among other reasons,they were eating birds during their lifetime! John Ruben, Oregon State professor of zoology, accurately summed up the problem this poses for the dinosaurs-to-birds theory. He said: “For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from. That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories” (“Discovery Raises New Doubts…,” 2009). Pretty serious, indeed!

This situation highlights one of the most common problems with the various aspects of evolutionary theory: the fact that tenet after tenet is proven to be positively wrong. And yet, instead of questioning the theory that undergirds the inaccurate conclusions, most evolutionary scientists go “back to the drawing board” and concoct a different scenario that eventually proves to be just as wrong. The problem is not in the various possible lines of evolution, it is in the theory itself. It is not as if evolutionists simply misidentified the wrong animal from which birds sprang; they have misidentified the complete process. Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs because evolution is not true. According to the Law of Biogenesis, and the known scientific evidence (see Miller, 2012), the most plausible explanation is that God created birds fully functional “in the beginning.” That concept has stood the test of time and will most certainly not be replaced in a few decades.

REFERENCES

“Dinosaur Guts: Photos of a Paleo-Predator” (2012), LiveScience, http://www.livescience.com/22805-dinosaur-guts-photos.html.

“Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links” (2009), ScienceDaily, June, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2001), “Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and ‘Dinosaurs-to-Birds’ Theory—Part 1,” Reason & Revelation, 21[4]: 25-32.

Xing, Lida, et al. (2012), “Abdominal Contents from Two Large Cretaceous Compsognathids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) Demonstrate Feeding on Confuciusornithids and Dromaeosaurids,” PLOS: Biology, August, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0044012.

[Odahviing]

Dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds because, among other reasons,they were eating birds during their lifetime!

Dovoljno je ovo što sam ovo video pa da ne moram da čitam dalje. Verovatno opet neka glupost, kakve veze ima ko je šta jeo sa time ko je od koga evoluriao. Jeli su se međusobno, a ne mogu ptice da jedu???

[Milan Nikolic]

Наука тражи одговоре чисто физичке природе. Док неки протестанти траже научне доказе за нешто што припада метафизици.

Добро запамтите то да библијско стварање припада метафизици. Ако је истина оно што приповеда Библија онда је Бог толико удаљио свет од првобитног стања и створио поделу између првобитног и потоњег да је потпуно узалудно употребљавати науку за објашњење библијског стварања.

Наука се не бави оним што је било у почетку библијског стварања. На пример, када научници данас добију сигнал са инструмената који се налазе на Марсу, он може каснити преко 15 минута - сви ми када погледамо планету Марс видимо тај Марс како је изгледао пре неколико или десетак минута (зависно колико је Марс тренутно удаљен од Земље).

Наука се не бави ограничавањем физичких сазнања када открије удаљена космичка тела попут звезда и галаксија. Дакле, науку не занима питање библијског стварања када закључи да су нека космичка тела удаљена по хиљаду, десетину хиљада, стотину хиљада, милион или милијарду светлосних година.

Наука само зна да су ти објекти ,,постојали'' пре толико времена колико је потребно да светлост од њих допре до нас. Наука сопственим очима види - помоћу телескопа и технологије коју ћемо можда моћи приуштити и ми са ЖРУ-а -, да се у космосу формирају многе галаксије, многи сунчеви системи и многе планете.

Једном речју, еволуција пред нашим очима - призор са закашњењем од много година. Тако да је веома мизерно за човека да затвара очи и слуђује самога себе како еволуција није физичка истина.

Драги моји, замислите случај да је Библија забележила како је Месец створен са површином потпуно глатком као билијарска кугла. Научници би откривали кратере и планине на Месецу, док би месецоглаткофили учење о глатком Месецу уздизали као догму без премца.

Такво навлачење мрака на очи и спутавање видимо данас код неких протестантских креациониста. Данашњем талибанству равно верско махнитање против слободе и здраворазума.

[grigorije22]

Milan Nikolic

Nisam znao da si toliko popularan i da imas fanove

http://forum.vidovdan.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=14405

[znatiželjan]

Ja na onim sličicama ne videh ni jednu prelaznu formu, nego ili visoko specijalizovane životinjske oblike koji i danas postoje, ili one koju su izumrli. I dan danas, svakodnevno se odigrava izumiranje bilnjih i životinjskih vrsta, a da još sve vrste nisu ni pronadjene tj otkrivene. Npr primitivni oktopod je u potpunosti razvijeni oktopod, razne vrste riba, a posebno arheopteriks, koji je bio ptica sa perjem i kandžama na krilima... Inače, uvidjam da nema fajte raspravljati se, jer niko ovde neće promeniti svoje mišljenje...nego samo dangubimo... ( i danas postoji nekoliko vrsta takvih ptica)

Postoji pregršt prelaznih fosila između reptila (Theropoda) i ptica. Između ptica i sisara ih nema jer sisari ne potiču od ptica, već od druge grane reptila (Sinapsida) a izmedju sinapsida i sisara takođe postoji pregršt prelaznih fosila.

Evo ti jedan spisak (sa referencama ka naučnim radovima) - http://www.talkorigi...c/CC/CC214.html

i spisak za sisare - http://www.talkorigi...c/CC/CC215.html

Evo ti jedan spisak sa sličicama - http://en.wikipedia....osaurs_to_birds

Izvini na linkovima, ali cenim da je isto da ti ja ovde napišem spisak ili dam link ka spisku... tj. ovde nemam šta da objašnjavam svojim rečima... i više me interesuje odakle ti takva pogrešna ideja?

Kad na najjačem dokazu protiv evolucije tako banalno padneš... ne moraš ni da iznosiš dalje dokaze...

[znatiželjan]

Dinosaurusi postoje i danas, a masovnije su istrebljeni u proteklih 1000 godina, o čemu svedoče mnogi istorijski zapisi velikog broja naroda širom planete, kao i mnogobrojni crteži i figurice dinosaurusa napravljene u zadnjih 1000 godina.

Science Can No Longer Stomach Dinosaurs-to-Birds Theory

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

For decades now, the evolutionary community has been batting around the theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds (Thompson and Harrub, 2001). In fact, if you keep your ear to the ground about the latest scientific news and writings, you will still hear the theory being floated in various places. To bolster the theory, paleontologists have identified “fuzz” that surrounds some dinosaur fossils as “protofeather” material. Pictures of “feathered” dinosaurs have graced the covers of science magazines for years.

It just so happens, however, that though this theory is still out there, and is championed by many, it simply cannot be true. The fact of the matter is, we have found fully functional, flying, legitimately feathered (not “fuzz-covered”) birds that lived “millions of years” (using the inaccurate deep-time of evolution) before dinosaurs died out.

In August, 2012 in the open-access on-line biology journal, PLOS: Biology, Lida Xing and colleagues wrote an article titled “Abdominal Contents from Two Large Cretaceous Compsognathids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) Demonstrate Feeding on Confuciusornithids and Dromaeosaurids” (2012). That is a mouthful, but in laymen’s terms it simply means that the skeletons of two dinosaurs that lived during the “cretaceous” period ate a bird known as Confuciusornis sanctus. The two dinosaur fossils under consideration are recognized as Sinocalliopteryx gigas. According to evolutionary time, these dinosaurs lived about 120 million years ago. Yet the Confuciusornis sanctus found in the stomach of this creature was a “crow-size, flight-capable bird” (“Dinosaur Guts…,” 2012). One of the picture captions describes the stomach contents as “a tiny bird skeleton within the stomach of the dinosaur Sinocalliopteryx” (“Dinosaur Guts…”). Dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds because, among other reasons,they were eating birds during their lifetime! John Ruben, Oregon State professor of zoology, accurately summed up the problem this poses for the dinosaurs-to-birds theory. He said: “For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from. That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories” (“Discovery Raises New Doubts…,” 2009). Pretty serious, indeed!

This situation highlights one of the most common problems with the various aspects of evolutionary theory: the fact that tenet after tenet is proven to be positively wrong. And yet, instead of questioning the theory that undergirds the inaccurate conclusions, most evolutionary scientists go “back to the drawing board” and concoct a different scenario that eventually proves to be just as wrong. The problem is not in the various possible lines of evolution, it is in the theory itself. It is not as if evolutionists simply misidentified the wrong animal from which birds sprang; they have misidentified the complete process. Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs because evolution is not true. According to the Law of Biogenesis, and the known scientific evidence (see Miller, 2012), the most plausible explanation is that God created birds fully functional “in the beginning.” That concept has stood the test of time and will most certainly not be replaced in a few decades.

REFERENCES

“Dinosaur Guts: Photos of a Paleo-Predator” (2012), LiveScience, http://www.livescien...uts-photos.html.

“Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links” (2009), ScienceDaily, June, http://www.scienceda...90609092055.htm.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://www.apologeti...18&article=1722.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2001), “Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and ‘Dinosaurs-to-Birds’ Theory—Part 1,” Reason & Revelation, 21[4]: 25-32.

Xing, Lida, et al. (2012), “Abdominal Contents from Two Large Cretaceous Compsognathids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) Demonstrate Feeding on Confuciusornithids and Dromaeosaurids,” PLOS: Biology, August, http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0044012.

[GeniusAtWork]

Dinosaurusi postoje i danas...

dada

[Ignjatije]

Dinosaurusi postoje i danas

Naravno. Čeda ih vidja svaki dan i to baš arheopterikse.

[Odahviing]

Ja na onim sličicama ne videh ni jednu prelaznu formu, nego ili visoko specijalizovane životinjske oblike koji i danas postoje, ili one koju su izumrli. I dan danas, svakodnevno se odigrava izumiranje bilnjih i životinjskih vrsta, a da još sve vrste nisu ni pronadjene tj otkrivene. Npr primitivni oktopod je u potpunosti razvijeni oktopod, razne vrste riba, a posebno arheopteriks, koji je bio ptica sa perjem i kandžama na krilima... Inače, uvidjam da nema fajte raspravljati se, jer niko ovde neće promeniti svoje mišljenje...nego samo dangubimo... ( i danas postoji nekoliko vrsta takvih ptica)

E samo nešto da te pitam. Da li znaš koja je verovatnoća da kada životinja ili biljka da se njeno telo fosilizuje i da ga mi onda par miliona godina kasnije nađemo. Istina je da nemamo mnogo fosila koji bi objasnili baš svaku "transformaciju". Međutim postoji i nešto što je DNK, na osnovu koga se odrećuju evolutivni putevi.

[Avocado]

Ja na onim sličicama ne videh ni jednu prelaznu formu, nego ili visoko specijalizovane životinjske oblike koji i danas postoje, ili one koju su izumrli. I dan danas, svakodnevno se odigrava izumiranje bilnjih i životinjskih vrsta, a da još sve vrste nisu ni pronadjene tj otkrivene. Npr primitivni oktopod je u potpunosti razvijeni oktopod, razne vrste riba, a posebno arheopteriks, koji je bio ptica sa perjem i kandžama na krilima...

Pričaš kao da su "prelazne forme" i "visoko specijalizovani životinjski oblici" antonimi... ne znam odakle ti ideja da je prelazna forma neki nespecijalizovani ili nerazvijeni životinjski oblik... ali to je samo tvoj problem... Prelazni fosil je fosil koji ima osobine dve različite grupe životinja... i arheopteriks nije samo ptica jer ima mnoge osobine reptila... koje ptice nemaju... ne radi se samo o kandžama koje imaju današnje dve vrste ptica, već o malo većem spisku tipično reptilskih osobina:

http://www.talkorigi...eptile-features

Inače, uvidjam da nema fajte raspravljati se, jer niko ovde neće promeniti svoje mišljenje...nego samo dangubimo...

A ne... neće moći tako... ne možeš svoje nerazumno odbijanje realnosti da izjednačiš sa razumnim stavom zauzetim na osnovu dokaza... ja ću veoma lako da promenim svoje mišljenje... čim pružiš nešto jače od banalno netačnih izjava... poput izjave da prelazne forme ne postoje... i "obrazloženja" da među svim oblicima života koji sasvim jasno pokazuju mešovite karakteristike ti ne vidiš prelaznu formu... okolnost da ti ne razumeš šta su prelazne forme i ne prihvataš stav naučnika o tome šta su prelazne forme, ne invalidira teoriju tih naučnika, već samo pokazuje da je nisi razumeo... i da zapravo negiraš svoju pogrešnu viziju te teorije...

( i danas postoji nekoliko vrsta takvih ptica)

samo u tvojoj mašti...

[grigorije22]

Darwinian Evolution Is Dead!

Reason #3: The Non-Universality of the Genetic Code! (Uh Oh for Dawkins!)

Amazingly enough, the facts show Dawkins to be utterly uninformed and out of the loop when it comes to the latest advances being made in genetics! and this guy is an authority?!

From my ID e-book:

"Appealing to genetics for Darwinian Evolution, Dawkins cited in his most recent book ('The Greatest Show On Earth') the "near universality of the genetic code inside all life" as proof that Darwinian Evolution is correct.

But is there Universality in the genetic code? The fact that we have now found over 17 Variant Genetic Codes inside the DNA of various organisms on this planet shatters that idea! Those Variant Codes all employ different sequential logic! so to give a hypothetical example, in a sheep, the sequential arrangement of the amino acids ACC will code for the amino acid leucine,but in a butterfly, TGC will code for it. But if Darwinism is true (Universal Common Descent via N.S acted on by random mutations)- then we should expect to see one Universal Code throughout all organisms on the planet, not Variants! So where did all of that Info./Logic that dictates those Variant Coding Conventions derive from?!

In 2011, world-class DNA-researcher Craig Venter mentioned the fact of these

Variant Coding Conventions at a major Evolution Conference where Dawkins was present, and what he said obviously burst Dawkins' bubble (as it went against Dawkin's centerpiece of proof in his new book for Universal Common Descent

and the Tree of Life). Venter made it clear in no uncertain terms that there is no

Tree of Life which demonstrates Universal Common Descent (the Darwinian idea that all Life evolved from a single ancestor gradually over vast epochs of time). The Universality of the Genetic Code in all life-forms would certainly back up that nucleic Darwinian idea, but that hope has been forever derailed with the discovery of 17 other Variant Codes present in the DNA of various organisms on Earth. Predictably, Dawkins appeared shocked, and he replied in his usual arrogant and incredulous form.

From Richard Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show On Earth' (2009), pg. 409 (http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Show-Earth-ebook/dp/B002LVVCQM?tag=vglnkc7056-20):

Dawkins: "...the genetic code is universal, all but identical across animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea and viruses. The 64-word dictionary, by which three letter DNA words are translated into 20 amino acids and one punctuation mark, which means 'start reading here' or 'stop reading here,' is the same 64-word dictionary wherever you look in the living kingdoms (with one or two exceptions too minor to undermine the generalization)".

In his new book, Dawkins said that all throughout the "living kingdom" we will find

"the same 64-word dictionary"- but that is patently false, and it appears as if he is not even abreast of what is going on these days. All of the currently known Codes, both Nuclear and Mitochondrial, are listed here:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi#564.

So far, there are 17 Variant Codes, which = 17 different" 64-word dictionaries", but each employing a different Language! (aka. Logic). No more appealing to the supposed

"Universality" of the Genetic Code to prove Universal Common Descent!

At this 2011 Conference at Arizona State University, with a panel including Dawkins, Venter, Physicists Paul Davies and Lawrence Krauss, to name a few- the topic was

"What is Life?"- watch it here: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/what-is-life-panel- and most of the panel starts off by saying that all Life on Earth was of the same kind (descending from a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)). But around 9 minutes in, Venter starts to remarkably disagree with the other panelists, especially Dawkins. More people need to know about this!:

Venter: "I'm not so sanguine as some of my colleagues here," "that there's only one life form on this planet. We have a lot of different types of metabolism, different organisms. I wouldn't call you (turning to Davies) the same life form as the one we have that lives in pH 12 base, that would dissolve your skin if we dropped you in it."

Paul Davies (famous physicist): "Well, I've got the same genetic code," "We'll have a

common ancestor."

Venter: "You don't have the same genetic code". "In fact, the Mycoplasmas use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells. So there are a lot of variations on the theme..."

Davies: "But you're not saying it belongs to a different tree of life from me, are you?"

Venter: "Well, I think the tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So, the tree, ya' know…...there may be a bush of life…(laughter from audience)…So, there is not a tree of life". Then he ends by stressing the "diversity present in the DNA world" (the Variant Coding Conventions)- then Dawkins:

Dawkins: "I'm intrigued, at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction. I mean...the DNA code of all creatures that have ever been looked at is all but identical". "Surely that means that they're all related? Doesn't it?"

Venter: (just smiles). (probably thinking: "did you even hear what I said?").

So there was Venter, telling the panel about the Variant Coding Conventions

found within various organisms' DNA, and then Dawkins, a few minutes later, hilariously acting as if he wasn't listening to one of the greatest authorities on DNA/ Genetics.

"Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper":

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html

"Craig Venter Denies Common Descent - Dawkins Incredulous":

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/craig-venter-denies-common-descent-dawkins-incredulous/.

Craig Venter on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

Dawkins on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

The Greatest Show on Earth

[grigorije22]

[Анастасија]

Imaš upozorenje zato što non stop spamuješ sve moguće teme na kojima se pojaviš, copy/paste i klipovima iako sam te upozoravala bezbroj puta da to ne radiš.

[grigorije22]

Imaš upozorenje zato što non stop spamuješ sve moguće teme na kojima se pojaviš, copy/paste i klipovima iako sam te upozoravala bezbroj puta da to ne radiš.

Ok onda cu da postavim ovde https://www.pouke.org/forum/topic/7763-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%9A%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%83-%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8/page__st__3444