Зоран Ђуровић: SAŠA KNEŽEVIĆ: DINOSAURI I LJUDI – JESU LI ONI ŽIVELI U ISTO DOBA?

[Ivan Marković]

пре 2 минута, Avocado рече

zaverologija

Ja bih to nazvao kriptosociologijom...Inače, jedina stvar koja je zaista luđa od svih zaveroloških priča je priča da nikakve zavere i nema...

[Avocado]

пре 3 минута, Ivan Marković рече

Ja bih to nazvao kriptosociologijom...Inače, jedina stvar koja je zaista luđa od svih zaveroloških priča je priča da nikakve zavere i nema...

Hoće to kad svako naučno saznanje suprotno tvojim pogledima na svet relativizuješ do bezvrednosti, a ložiš se na teorije zavere i lovačke priče...

Bitno je rešiti kognitivnu disonancu... što reče jedan profesor psihologije, svi mehanizmi odbrane su super dok šljakaju...

 

 

[Ula Mark]

 

M. Polo prenosi opis neobičnog bića - je li to fakat? Da li se možemo složiti da je to biće izazivalo jezu i strah kod ljudi? I po opisu ono mnogo liči na pedatora kakav je bio t-rex (ili whatever). Sada da li je imao prednje nožice ili prednje ručice, je cepidlačenje, jer je opis ove beštije dosta grozan: Čeljusti su dovoljno široke da progutaju čoveka, zubi su veliki i oštri, a njihov izgled toliko grozan da NI ČOVEK ... ne može DA IM PRIĐE OD UŽASA?
 

M. Polo nije opisivao velociraptora (kojeg je Spielberg ušminkao), opisivao je beštiju - a ta beštija u narodnom pamćenju ostala je kao zmaj. Ona je i jedina "mitološka" životinja u kineskom kalendaru - više manje ne što je izmišljena, nego što je izumrla (a kad su Kinezi pravili kalendar, ona mora da je bila realna kao i sve druge životinje koje su ušle u drevni kalendar drevnog naroda, što je jedino logično). + U narodu su ostale legende o toj životinji ... koja je izazivali strah. I narod ko narod ponešto je i dodao, so what, jer strah ima velike oči. Kad može Spielberg, što ne bi mogao i narod. Ali oduzmi taj "višak", ako ti to smeta - nije on suština ovog razgovora.
 

Ovakvih ili sličnih svedočanstava o aždajama i zmajevima ima nekoliko hiljada, što tekstovi, što crteži, što drugi artefakti. Nekoliko hiljada i to maltene u svim drevnim "civilizacijama". Svi su oni verovatno pušili travu.
 

A da nepravda bude još veća, pronašli još i živa tkiva ovih bića! Kako dalje, šta sad?
 

Eto, ostavljam te da sazercavaš 100 miliona (pazi, to je 100.000.000) godina stara živa tkiva dinosaurusa u nadi da ćeš ipak pronaći način kako to naučno da dokažeš i objasniš.

 

Imam predlog - deny it!
 

To be continued ...

 

 

 

 
 

[Ronald]

A meni najsmijesnije kad čitam da je ovo dokaz young earth creationista, a kad bi samo neko htio da čita vidio bi da je profesorica Mary Schweitzer konzervativni evangelista, koja se upravo najviše zgrožava na ove kreacionisticke talibane što joj zloupotrebljavaju istraživanje za kreacionisticke zablude, mnogi kreacionisti je napadaju preko emaila kako krije rezultate pisuci izuzetno ružne  i nekulturne poruke. Evo malo iz jednog intervjua 2014:

It is likewise clear in a 2014 interview with Biologos [27] that Schweitzer is a conservative, evangelical Christian:

I do go to pretty conservative churches… I go to church because I want to learn and be held accountable. I want to learn more and more about what the Bible teaches… Everyone has to figure out what they need and why they go to church. The hunger in me which is fed in the churches I go to has to do with the fact that they preach right out of the Bible, and I need that. I guess I don’t go to church to hear political views and hear about how they need money—I go to hear about God.

Growing up with a conservative Christian background, she had believed that the secular science establishment promotes themes like evolution out of a desire to discredit biblical faith. However, when she took an actual paleontology class, she saw things differently [27]:

I think the thing that surprised me most about that class was that I had no idea, coming from a conservative Christian background, that scientists are not all trying to disprove God in whatever way they can. What we were not told growing up is that there’s a lot of very rigorous, hard science that allows us to interpret the lives of organisms we’ve never seen—and knowing this made me rethink a few things, because I know God and God is not a deceiver. If you step back a little bit and let God be God I don’t think there’s any contradiction at all between the Bible and what we see in nature. He is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is bigger than that.

With her experiences, she is able to help students coming from a young earth background to cope with the shock when they realize that mainstream science is true and what their parents told them about science is false [27]:

I think that parents need to tell their kids that there are a lot of REASONS scientists say what they do, and virtually NONE of those reasons are to disprove God’s existence. That doesn’t enter in. I’ve had lots of students come into my office in tears over the years, saying, “I don’t understand…”

She has been dismayed by how young earth creationists have misused her results:

One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors. [27]

She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” [26]

Sometimes she can graciously negotiate differences of opinion [27]:

One time I was visiting a church and the pastor got up and started preaching a sermon about people not being related to apes, and he started talking about this scientist in Montana who discovered red blood cells in dinosaur bones—he didn’t know I was in the audience—and it was my research he was talking about! Unfortunately, he got everything wrong. I just got up and left…

One of the churches I go to is very conservative—But the pastor and I have discussed what I do, and we have agreed to disagree on some things. I think that’s the appropriate attitude to have—after all, God is the only one who knows for sure—he is the only one who was there.

But sometimes it gets personal and ugly:

It’s also hard because, being a Christian evolutionary biologist, I receive a lot of mail that is not fun—fellow Christians suspect my faith, and scientific colleagues suspect my science. But I have no agenda, except to produce data… I’ve gotten a lot of pretty cruel, harsh, judgmental emails over the years—and if you’re a Christian saying things like that, it’s no wonder my colleagues don’t want anything to do with faith. Christianity is about love, and these are not really loving responses to anything. [27]

To Mary Schweitzer, young earth creationism  errs theologically as well as scientifically:

Science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” [26]

As she continues to study the complexities of God’s world with this perspective, her faith is not threatened, but rather is deepened:

I don’t feel that I’m discrediting God with the work I’m doing, I think I am honoring him with the abilities he’s given me…. The more I understand how things work, the bigger God gets. When he was just a magician pulling things out of a hat, that doesn’t even compare to how I see him now! [27]

[Ronald]

Evo i iz intervjua 2006 šta kaze o svojoj vjeri:

From a 2006 interview with the Smithsonian:

She describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”[26] 

 

[Ula Mark]

Ron ... otkrio si toplu vodu. Sve si objasnio o njoj, a pomenuli smo ranije da je ona evolucionista (kuku lele da su kreacionisti otkrili ova tkiva), a nisi objasnio kako su "kreocionisti" zloupotrebili njeno otkriće!

Ali nije ona jedina koja je otkrila ovu anomaliju. Ovih slučaja ima gomila ...

 

[Ronald]

пре 15 минута, Ula Mark рече

Ron ... otkrio si toplu vodu. Sve si objasnio o njoj, a pomenuli smo ranije da je ona evolucionista (kuku lele da su kreacionisti otkrili ova tkiva), a nisi objasnio kako su "kreocionisti" zloupotrebili njeno otkriće!

Ali nije ona jedina koja je otkrila ovu anomaliju. Ovih slučaja ima gomila ...

 

A šta si ti otkrio u životu, mlaku vodu? Zloupotrebili su, jer oni uopšte ne znaju šta je nauka, zatim šta je evolucija, jer da znaju ne bi se busali u prsa da je ovo dokaz za mladu zemlju, niti za nekakvo obaranje evolucije. Znam ja ko je ona, čitao sam njene radove naučne, koje young earth creationist ne citaju uopšte.

Još je prošle godine teisticki evolucionist Scott Buchanan detaljno objasnio sve o ovom slucaju za kreacioniste, tako se tu nema šta dodati.

[Ula Mark]

Pero, Marko ili Scott whatever. Nego, deder majke ti objasni ovo argumentima, ovu podvalu ...

I polako sa zaključcima. 

 

[Ronald]

Ula Mark iliti Saša Kneževiću deder ti meni reci sta je nauka i čemu služi za početak?

[Ula Mark]

... nemam pojma. Čekam te da me prosvetliš!

[Ronald]

Управо сада, Ula Mark рече

... nemam pojma. Čekam te da me prosvetliš!

Pa kad naučis šta je nauka, onda ti možda bude ponesto i jasno. 

[Ula Mark]

Znači nemaš odgovor? To je to ... klasika. Nisam ni očekivao drugo!

[Ronald]

Moras razumjeti kako funkcioniše nauka, da bi shvatio šta je evolucija, odnosno moraš shvatiti da se nauka ne bavi istinom, tacnije istina u nauci nema uopšte istu tezinu, ona je ogranicenog vremenskog trajanja, posto su nove teorije u nauci uvijek malo više istinite od prethodnih, odnosno moraš shvatiti da  postoji razlika izmedju naučnih iskaza i iskaza koji mogu biti istiniti ali nisu naučni.

[Ula Mark]

Eto, odlično! Pružam ti priliku da odbaciš svoje predrasude i prihvatiš »novu istinu« … Ionako nećeš zbog toga u pakao, jer u nauci ne bi trebalo da ima nešto kao dogma ili smrtni greh?

 

Evo ovi naučnici koji nisu talibani, iskreni ...

Why academics embrace evolution

Exclusive: Marylou Barry quotes scientists
who still wear '21st century powdered wigs'

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” Psalm 14 tells us. Why, then, do so many educators make atheism and its cousin naturalistic evolution their creed, to the point of depicting the rest of us as fools and simpletons? Why do the elite, who pride themselves on their power of critical thinking, buy so uncritically into what has been called “a fairy tale for grownups”?

Amazingly, some have been quite willing to answer this question, and their candor is both surprising and refreshing. So then, why do they embrace evolution?

“… Because they fear that we shall revert to believing in a divine plan,” wrote the late Gordon Rattray Taylor, British author, broadcaster and former chief science adviser to BBC Television.

“… Only because it supposedly excludes a creator,” said Dr. Michael Walker, former senior lecturer in anthropology, University of Sydney.

“… Not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible,” wrote the late D.M.S. Watson, chair of evolution at the University of London.

 

“Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable,” wrote the late Sir Arthur Keith, physical anthropologist and head of the Anatomy Department at London Hospital.

“… Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door,” wrote Richard Lewontin, former professor of genetics at Harvard University.

Yet none puts it more plainly than Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University.

“I do not want to believe in God,” Wald admitted to Scientific American magazine. “Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

Sir Julian Huxley, the late president of UNESCO and grandson of Darwin’s colleague Thomas Huxley, put an even finer point on the argument:

“I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores,” he wrote.

“We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom,” concurred his brother, the late author Aldous Huxley.

“I want atheism to be true,” New York University philosophy professor Thomas Nagel elaborated, “and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is not God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

How ironic that Charles Darwin, after a lifetime of turning the scientific world on its head, began in later years to question his own conclusions.

“Often a cold shudder has run through me,” Darwin wrote in a letter to his friend and colleague Charles Lyell, “and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy.”

OK, let’s see if I’ve got all this straight:

1. Our children are barred from learning about Creation in school because it is politically incorrect to question the accuracy of an old man’s “phantasy,” even though the old man did so himself; and …

    

2. Teachers are prohibited from offering an alternative explanation of how we got here because the academic elite don’t want to be reminded that the Creator of the Universe doesn’t approve of their sexual behavior; and …
3. Intelligent Design is not an option for consideration in college because tenured philosophy professors “don’t want the universe to be like that”; however …
4. The parents of students are still required to prop up this charade with their tax money, despite the fact that only 13 percent of Americans even believe in naturalistic evolution!

“Most professors continue to teach evolution in the universities out of fear,” explains Dr. Phillip E. Johnson, retired professor of law at the University of California Berkeley and spokesman for intelligent design education. “This fear is that of not being tenured, of not getting research grants, of not being published, and of not being accepted by their peers. So to be accepted, to be published, to be granted research money, and to be tenured by their university, they must follow the party line, which is evolution. This is how the academic game is played.”

Thanks, Doctor. I think I get it now.

So, don’t expect to hear a cumulative mea culpa out of academia any time soon, because that would go against the character, not to mention the economy, of that institution. But it’s plain to see that the freedom to teach alternative concepts in the classroom has gone full circle, and the tail is now wagging the dog.

The once-revolutionary theory of evolution has become the powdered wig of the 21st century. Most people agree that wearing it doesn’t make very much sense, but nobody wants to be the first to take it off.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/88606/#4CsRPFvsb5htUP4g.99

[GeniusAtWork]

Еволуција се побија исто као и било која научна теорија: напишеш рад у коме покажеш да си добио резултате које ТЕ не дозвољава, тј. не предвиђа. Предаш га на peer review. Иза тога ће људи од струке прочитати то што си написао и рећи да ли си се и где зезнуо, да ли нешто није у реду са условима у којима је изведен експеримент или не, са методологијом коју си користио приликом извођења закључка, и тако даље. Ако постоје грешке у раду, неће бити прихваћен. Ако не постоје, вероватно ће већи број њих покушати да понови твој експеримент под истим условима да би се видело да ли ће добити исте резулате. Ако добију - оборио си теорију еволуције. Ако не, рећи ће шта и како код њих није успело, па ће се видети шта и зашто није у реду са условима у којима си ти дошао до твојих резултата или/и методологијом коју си користио.

Нема мишљења, завера, ово-оно...лепо постоји процедура како се теорије обарају. Али за дивно чудо ниједан креациониста никако да лепо напише научни рад којим би оборио злу ТЕ; све се своди на сајтове, књиге, клипове на јутјубу и мишљења разних људи, било да су лаици или научници (а и кад јесу, скоро увек се баве струком која нема директне везе са ТЕ).