ФОРУМ НОВОСТИ ВИДЕО ИНТЕРВЈУ КЊИГЕ ТЕКСТОВИ ФОТОГРАФИЈЕ О НАМА
Шестоднев
April 24, 2014, 02:47:27 pm *
Dobrodošli, Gost. Molim vas prijavite se ili se registrujte.

Prijavite se korisničkim imenom, lozinkom i dužinom sesije
Vesti: Ми се не стидимо Јеванђеља-Св Василије Велики
 
   Početna   Pomoć Prijavljivanje Registracija  

 

Stranice: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15   Idi dole
  Štampaj  
Autor Tema: Evolucija Čoveka??Ispitajmo Dokaze  (Pročitano 23048 puta)
tripo 41
Moderator
ветеран
*****
Van mreže Van mreže

Poruke: 1081



E-mail
« Odgovor #45 poslato: Septembar 30, 2011, 12:36:23 pm »

Fossil Hand Points Away from Human Evolution
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

In 2010, a new candidate was announced for humanity's evolutionary tree—Australopithecus sediba.1 Now, recent analyses of its fossilized bones are being reported as further proof of its ancestral standing.

However, headlines presenting it as another rung on the human evolutionary ladder—such as "2-million-year-old fossils raise hope over 'missing link,'"2 "Fossil Trove Sheds Light On a Stage of Evolution,"3 and "Rethinking Human Origins: Fossils Reveal a New Ancestor on the Family Tree"4—all fly in the face of the actual data found in the five detailed reports describing it in the journal Science.

One of the scientific reports examined the features of each bone in the wrist and hand from what appears to have been an adult female. The unique hand doesn't look like a modern ape's, a modern human's, or even some sort of gradual transition between the two. The researchers described it as a "mosaic" of features.5

"Sediba's" finger bones were long, curved, and—"together with its primitive australopith-like upper limb"—demonstrate that this small primate was fit for swinging through trees, unlike ground-dwelling humans.5

Also, Sediba's thumb was long and skinny. The human thumb is shorter in proportion to the fingers so that it can be used to build things and handle "large loads during stone tool production." So Sediba's thumb probably "was not subject to the same type or frequency of loading as that of other contemporary or later hominins."5 Thus, this creature's anatomy shows strong evidence that it did swing from tree branches and, despite reports to the contrary, did not make tools.

The study authors wrote that the uniqueness of Sediba's hand "adds to the range of morphological [shape] variation previously documented in the hominin carpometacarpal [wrist] joints and to the ambiguity surrounding the polarity and functional significance of some of these features."5

The "functional significance" refers to the fossil hand's potential to manipulate objects and manufacture tools—a distinguishing feature of mankind made possible, in part, by humans' distinctive hand anatomy.6, 7

So, if Science says that this fossil adds "ambiguity," how can the mainstream media say it "sheds light" on human evolution? Clearly, the scientific details do not match the headlines. But when it comes to human evolution, headlines typically don't match reality.8

For example, in 2009, "Ardi" enjoyed widespread coverage as a fossil species that best represented evolutionary notions of the anatomy "of our elusive common ancestors with the African apes."9 But the grand claims that it walked upright like humans were soon debunked.10

Reports in 2010 on Australopithecus sediba fossils made similar claims regarding the possibility that the species represents some human ancestor. But it, too, was quickly seen as "not a missing link."11 The new Sediba hand fossils, from the same site as those described in 2010, clearly confirm what was concluded last year.12 Rather than showing any transitional features between ape and man, the hand contains a mosaic of well-matched features that were uniquely fitted together—as though they belonged to a specially created, distinct creature.
Sačuvana

"Ja ću žednome dati iz izvora vode žive za badava" Otkrivenje 21,6
tripo 41
Moderator
ветеран
*****
Van mreže Van mreže

Poruke: 1081



E-mail
« Odgovor #46 poslato: Septembar 30, 2011, 12:37:36 pm »

Study Says People Subconsciously Resist Creative Ideas
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Most people would probably agree that creative ideas drive innovation. Along with many others past and present, recently retired Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs would certainly fall into the category of innovators. Around the time of his resignation in August 2011, the company responsible for the iPod, iPhone, and iPad had more available operating cash ($76.2 billion) than the U.S. government ($73.8 billion).1

But psychologists recently found that most of the same people who desire creativity are also biased against it, leading them to reject creative ideas before giving them a fair assessment. Could this explain why some also reject the idea of a Creator?

In a report scheduled to be published in the journal Psychological Science, Cornell University psychologist Jack Goncalo and two colleagues showed the results of two studies that compared what participants openly said about their views on creativity with how they reacted to novel ideas. The first experiment confirmed that participants showed "an implicit bias against creativity."2 Further, the "anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it."3

The second experiment investigated why the very person who says that he values new ideas can so often actually respond negatively to them—a situation the authors referred to as a "deep irony." The investigators found that if a new idea elicited feelings of uncertainty, it was perceived negatively. Their results confirmed that "the motivation to reduce uncertainty when problem solving can activate the creativity bias."2

Apparently, people tend to be governed by a deep-seated desire to maintain a sense of certainty. New ideas can trigger discomfort, since they introduce unfamiliar possibilities. The study authors cited research demonstrating that people have "a strong motivation to diminish and avoid"2 feelings of uncertainty. As a result, many will reject ideas that threaten feelings of certainty, regardless of whether or not those ideas have merit.

The study authors wrote:

        Our results show that regardless of how open minded people are, when they feel motivated to reduce uncertainty either because they have an immediate goal of reducing uncertainty, or feel uncertain generally, this may bring negative associations with creativity to mind which result in lower valuations of a creative idea.2

Further, the feelings of uncertainty can arise from fear of failure, "perceptions of risk, social rejection when expressing the idea to others, and uncertainty about when their idea will reach completion."2

The idea of a Creator is often unwelcome to those who have assumed that God either does not exist or is not responsible for the origin of the world. Many scientists have been expelled from their jobs or research positions due to their willingness to entertain new and creative origins ideas that venture outside the dictates of evolutionary dogma.4 In light of Goncalo and his colleagues’ research, it could be that those who expelled such scientists feared risk to themselves and/or social rejection if they entertained possibilities outside those sanctioned by their hidebound associates.

Thus, perhaps the idea of a Creator is rejected not because it is a bad idea, but merely because it stirs feelings of uncertainty in the minds of those who have subscribed to evolution (whether or not the evidence supports it).
Sačuvana

"Ja ću žednome dati iz izvora vode žive za badava" Otkrivenje 21,6
tripo 41
Moderator
ветеран
*****
Van mreže Van mreže

Poruke: 1081



E-mail
« Odgovor #47 poslato: Septembar 30, 2011, 12:39:07 pm »

Human Languages Fit a Young Earth Model
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

According to the Bible, God introduced different human languages at Babel about 4,000 years ago.1 This brought about a dispersal and migration of the people assembled there, in accord with His original command to fill the earth.2 In contrast, evolutionary linguists believe that all languages developed over the last 12,000 years.

If the creation model of recent migration is true, one might expect to find regional languages that obviously came from the same language families initiated at Babel. And there should be less than 4,000 years' worth of differences between them—differences that inevitably happen as things such as words or pronunciation change between generations. A new study concludes that two language families from central Siberia and North America come from the same ancestral language, implying that they share a common and recent origin—just as the Bible relates.

UCLA's Jared Diamond wrote an article in Nature titled "Linguistics: Deep relationships between languages," in which he summarized the work of Edward Vajda.3 Vajda, whose works appear in the 2010 issue of the Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, found a very significant statistical link between the grammatical construction of the Yeniseian language family—represented by Ket, which is spoken by about 200 people in Siberia—and the North American Na-Dene language family, represented by Navajo and similar languages.

It is clear that all the languages within these two families were once one language. But one of the "questions that most trouble linguists," wrote Diamond, is "why do Yeniseian and Na-Dene languages still show such a strong relationship if they diverged 12,000 years ago, when other languages diverge beyond recognition after 5,000–10,000 years ago?"3

That question should actually be separated into several questions: Why do these languages appear so similar if they diverged 12,000 years ago? Did they actually diverge 12,000 years ago? Did all languages begin from one language that diverged over eons of evolution, or were they created as distinct languages from their very beginnings?

First, "other languages" never did "diverge beyond recognition." Instead, they were created so that they were "beyond recognition" right from the start at Babel. It was probably this inability to communicate between the various family groups that led to their dispersal.

More significantly, the reason these languages "still show such a strong relationship" could be that the ancestors of its modern speakers were part of the same family group only 4,000 or fewer years ago. Where are all the differences that should have arisen over the course of 12,000 years of supposed Na-Dene and Yeniseian linguistic evolution? Changes have occurred, but apparently not 12,000 years' worth.

These two languages are separated by a distance that was certainly traversable by foot within one or two generations during the post-Flood Ice Age, when sea level was 100 meters lower and a land bridge spanned today's Bering Strait.4 However, the languages within the two language families under consideration could not be separated by as much time as evolution insists, because they are still so similar. The evidence from the languages points to a recent, common origin, a scenario that perfectly fits the biblical model of a young earth.
Sačuvana

"Ja ću žednome dati iz izvora vode žive za badava" Otkrivenje 21,6
Lindemann
Gost
« Odgovor #48 poslato: Novembar 07, 2011, 02:41:42 pm »

Australoitekus sediba.
v
v
Australopithecus sediba pt 1 of 4

Australopithecus sediba pt 2 of 4

Australopithecus sediba pt 3 of 4

Australopithecus sediba pt 4 of 4



....
Sačuvana
Lindemann
Gost
« Odgovor #49 poslato: Novembar 13, 2011, 09:20:15 pm »

real studys about ''Fossil Men'' Geologist Dr.Patton Ph.D


Dr. Patton demonstrates that the fossil record which supposedly indicates the evolution of man actually represents a variety of apes and men, not that different from what we see in the living world. There is nothing in-between but a great deal of imaginative [art work] effort and some pithican-spoofus.
Sačuvana
grigorije
Moderator
ветеран
*****
Van mreže Van mreže

Poruke: 1375


« Odgovor #50 poslato: Novembar 15, 2011, 06:07:46 pm »

 http://www.teorijaevolucije.com/filogeneza_coveka.html
Sačuvana
Lindemann
Gost
« Odgovor #51 poslato: Novembar 15, 2011, 07:57:34 pm »

 Поздрав са 3 прста

Tebi je Grigorije vidim dosadno jer 1. promašio si temu(ova tema je napravljena za navodnu ,,evoluciju,, čoveka iz Kreacionističke i ID perspektive) i 2. Već sam ovde sve ovo sa teorijaevolucije.com na samom početku (a čak i na temi pobijanje argumenata sa teorijaevolucije.com) adresirao ...sada si kreirao potpuno izmešanu,zbunjujuću atmosferu ... Смех
« Poslednja izmena: Novembar 15, 2011, 07:59:25 pm od strane Lindemann » Sačuvana
grigorije
Moderator
ветеран
*****
Van mreže Van mreže

Poruke: 1375


« Odgovor #52 poslato: Novembar 15, 2011, 08:57:45 pm »

 Sad sam tek video, evo ispravljam gresku  Смех
Sačuvana
Lindemann
Gost
« Odgovor #53 poslato: Novembar 15, 2011, 09:09:10 pm »

 Sad sam tek video, evo ispravljam gresku  Смех










........... Смех Ma nema veze,samo sam rekao AlefŠinu preko pm da te banuje ...inače ovako,sve je ok ... Wink
Mada ne moraš to brisati,ali mnogo je bolje, ako ćemo se već vraćati na prethodne teme i argumente, čak i ove sa babićevog sajta  Превртање очију , da se postavljaju jedan po jedan argument ...jer tako je mnogo lakše, opet i iznoiva adresirati svaku poentu, nego li adresirati ceo jedan tekst, ili čak više tekstova, to zaista iziskuje mnoooogo vremena, a na kraju, zbog žurbe i sam odgovor na ove njihove ,,argumentacije,, nije verujem zadovoljavajući ...zato, argument po argument je nešto najbolje u debati, odnosno diskusiji, a i laicima je ovde lakše da prepoznaju dali su njihove, i naše tvrdnje odnosno argumenti zaista validni ili ne ...Sve u svemu ne moraš da se izvinjavaš nisi ništa strašno uradio ...a i stojadinović ovde nije administrator foruma, bar ne još uvek, inače bi sada popio jedan ban( da je unesto ovog sa teorijaevolucije.com bio neki tekst sa ID ili Kreacionističkih foruma)   Smiley
Sačuvana
Алеф
Administrator
ветеран
*****
Van mreže Van mreže

Poruke: 3374



E-mail
« Odgovor #54 poslato: Novembar 18, 2011, 07:15:14 am »

........... Смех Ma nema veze,samo sam rekao AlefŠinu preko pm da te banuje ..


Да знаш, требало би, иншалах  Бла

Него, погледајте ово, како нам је кажу изгледао чукун чукун... чукун деда



http://www.kurir-info.rs/planeta/ovo-nam-je-cukun-cukuncukun...-deda-150170.php
Sačuvana
normalnoopusten
Gost
« Odgovor #55 poslato: Novembar 18, 2011, 10:31:54 am »

........... Смех Ma nema veze,samo sam rekao AlefŠinu preko pm da te banuje ..


Да знаш, требало би, иншалах  Бла

Него, погледајте ово, како нам је кажу изгледао чукун чукун... чукун деда



http://www.kurir-info.rs/planeta/ovo-nam-je-cukun-cukuncukun...-deda-150170.php


koja nauka, koji su to naucnici, sami kazu prema zamisli ovako je izgledao, vau evo cini mise da postajem evolucionista, koji dokaz vau  ХаХаХа ХаХаХа ХаХаХа
Sačuvana
Lindemann
Gost
« Odgovor #56 poslato: Novembar 18, 2011, 02:03:23 pm »

Mašta može svašta....na žalost, samo bih voleo da čujem i te čudotvorne mutacije koje bi mogle da majmunsku ruku nekako ,,evoliraju,, u današnju ljudsku, koju inače ...izmedju ostalih delova tela čak i oni sa nacional geografika zovu ,,greatest tool ever DESIGNED,, ...haha....ne znam dali ste primetili, ali nešto mnogo oni u zadnje vreme pominju DESIGNED ...kad god imaju neku emisiju o životinjama itd. uvek se pominje DESIGNED a evoluciju možda pomenu jednom-dva put, a nekada uopšte i ne pomenu ..(dokaz da ,,evolucija,, apsolutno nije potrebna da bi se izučavao prirodni svet) ...zato pogledajte sledeći put kada oni iz nat.geografika kažu ,,Human hand is the greatest tool ever DESIGNED,, ... Бла

Inače, zašto iko još uvek nije odgovorio na ono moje pitanje vezano za homo erektusa i 50 milijardi enurona, i homo sapiensa koji ima 100 milijardi neurona?

I da dodam još jedno pitanje, može li mi neko objasniti kako je današnja ruka čoveka ,,evoluirala,, i zašto baš ovako?(ovo je zaista ultimativni alat prirode).
« Poslednja izmena: Novembar 18, 2011, 02:05:49 pm od strane Lindemann » Sačuvana
Lindemann
Gost
« Odgovor #57 poslato: Novembar 18, 2011, 02:28:03 pm »

Eh da...pogledajte samo evoluciju dvotočkaša .. Смех

v
v
v



....a ovo su i neki prelazni fosili ,,missing links,, odnosno fosili primitivnih dvotočkaša koji su nadjeni,a koji ,,dokazuju,, da je motor zaista ,,evoluirao, od jednostavnijih formi ka kompleksnijim formama ... Smiley
v
v



evo ga ..tomas hakslijev preteča sa jednom od ,,prelaznih formi,, ... Превртање очију



evo ga i motoarheopteriks ....




tiktaalik motorzae ....



a evo nam ga i jedan od prvih, modernih motora koji je ,,evoluirao,, moderni motor, odnosno koji je evoluirao karakteristike koje danas poseduje većina motora, odnosno predak genusa ,,trkačkih dvotočkaša,, ....i tako korak po korak, i ,,evoluicja,, koje nikad nije bilo je lagano predstavljena na primeru običnih varijacija motora (može i bilo čega drugog) a koristeći samo sličnost strukture i biohemijski sastav ....eto ...nemojte ni da pomislite da su ovi dvotočkaši ,,magično,, odjednom nastali odnosno dizajnirani, i nemojte slučajno ni da pomislite da su oni dizajnirani od nekog inteligentnog izvora, jer, kao što dokins reče, mi treba da nadjemo jednostavnija objašnjenja od onoga što objašnjavamo, a naravno navodni ,,inteligentni dizajner,, koji je dizajnirao ove dvotočkaše je onda mnogo kompleksniji od stvari koju objašnjavamo(dvotočkaše) zato ...argument vam neće biti validan ...jedino moguće objašnjenje jeste ,,jednostavno,, objašnjenje koje se kreće od simpliciteta ka sve većem kompleksu ..a to je EVOLUCIJA dvotočkaša, za koju imamo nebrojeno mnogo dokaza ...počev od njihovog ,,zajedničkog pretka,,(modela) pa sve do svih silnih ,,prelaznih formi,, odnosno ,,primitivnih,, fosila koji jasno pokazuju prelaz od jednostavnijeg ka kompleksnijem dvotočkažu, zatim tu su i dokazi sličnosti u strukturi, sličnost hemijskog sastava, zatim oni su svi izgradjeni od istog materijala, zatim koriste uglavnom ista pogonska sredstva, zatim mnogi od njih pate od identičnih ili barem sličnih ,,mutacija,, (kvarova) ,imaju veoma slične gume itd. itd.  jednostavno, samo bi lunatik rekao da dvotočkaši nisu evoluirali od ,,zajedničkog pretka,, na osnovu svih dokaza iz paleontologije, motogenetike, motohemije, anatomije, sličnosti u strukturi itd. itd. .... Превртање очију
Sačuvana
grigorije
Moderator
ветеран
*****
Van mreže Van mreže

Poruke: 1375


« Odgovor #58 poslato: Novembar 18, 2011, 02:33:18 pm »

 Sada bi ti evolucionisti rekli da je besmisleno da se uporedjuje ziva materija koja ima sposobnost deljenja i replikacija
 sa motorima koji su neziva mrtva materija.
Sačuvana
normalnoopusten
Gost
« Odgovor #59 poslato: Novembar 18, 2011, 02:57:05 pm »

Sada bi ti evolucionisti rekli da je besmisleno da se uporedjuje ziva materija koja ima sposobnost deljenja i replikacija
 sa motorima koji su neziva mrtva materija.

da al abiogeneza tvrdi da ce ta neziva materija sama od sebe da ozivi, to ipak ima smisla, i kad ozivi e onda se na nju nadovezuje evolucija.
 Smiley
Sačuvana
Stranice: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15   Idi gore
  Štampaj  
 
Prebaci se na:  

Pokreće MySQL Pokreće PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines Install Simple Machines Forum web hosting Ispravan XHTML 1.0! Ispravan CSS!