DNK in Bog

Kaj bi bilo, če bi lahko ... ?
User avatar
MAVER|CK
Posts: 880
Joined: 27.5.2005 16:34
Contact:

DNK in Bog

Post by MAVER|CK » 4.3.2010 13:17

Tudi pri tenisu rad podam žogico nasprotniku, zakaj je nebi še tukaj. Torej nekaj za vse vernike!

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

PS: Zadeva govori o sklepanju na to, da je inteligenca (Bog) naredila DNK!

gnu
Posts: 111
Joined: 1.3.2010 12:20

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by gnu » 4.3.2010 13:43

Zdi se, da je ključna predpostavka, iz katere avtor članka izpeljuje svoj sklep, da se koda ne more pojaviti v naravi kot rezultat slučajnih procesov.
Ampak, to je ravno tisto, kar je potrebno dokazati! Torej eden najstarejših lapsusov sklepanja: petitio principii.

Lahko bi dejali ravno obratno: DNK je ravno primer, kako se v naravi spontano lahko razvije koda.

User avatar
MAVER|CK
Posts: 880
Joined: 27.5.2005 16:34
Contact:

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by MAVER|CK » 5.3.2010 9:01

Sam sej tud samodejni nastanek življenja ni dokazan! Če je že evolucija dokazana po Darwinu!

problemi
Posts: 4931
Joined: 24.8.2009 1:20

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by problemi » 5.3.2010 9:51

MAVER|CK wrote:Sam sej tud samodejni nastanek življenja ni dokazan! Če je že evolucija dokazana po Darwinu!
Pa saj teorija evolucije to dokazuje. Razen, če ne verjameš v kreacijo nekoga ali nečesa. Ampak, koga?

User avatar
Aniviller
Posts: 7263
Joined: 15.11.2004 18:16

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by Aniviller » 5.3.2010 10:08

Stvar je popolnoma enostavna: od nastanka vesolja naprej je vesolje deterministicno (se pokorava fizikalnim zakonom) in tukaj ni nobene "luknje" v zakonu ki bi dopuscale poseganje visje sile. Torej, o bogu in stvarjenju lahko spekuliras edino pri samem nastanku vesolja, potem stvari tecejo naprej same kot ura (pa se tam izgubis tla pod nogami ko gledas stvar kot prostor-cas... tako da "bog" pride v kozmologijo le preko vprasanj tipa "zakaj je vesolje ravno tako kot je" in podobno... to je pa ze filozofija).

Ker je zivljenje nastalo kasneje in ni bilo prisotno od big banga naprej, je torej lahko le posledica naravnih procesov. Q.E.D.

problemi
Posts: 4931
Joined: 24.8.2009 1:20

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by problemi » 5.3.2010 10:16

Aniviller wrote:Stvar je popolnoma enostavna: od nastanka vesolja naprej je vesolje deterministicno (se pokorava fizikalnim zakonom) in tukaj ni nobene "luknje" v zakonu ki bi dopuscale poseganje visje sile. Torej, o bogu in stvarjenju lahko spekuliras edino pri samem nastanku vesolja, potem stvari tecejo naprej same kot ura (pa se tam izgubis tla pod nogami ko gledas stvar kot prostor-cas... tako da "bog" pride v kozmologijo le preko vprasanj tipa "zakaj je vesolje ravno tako kot je" in podobno... to je pa ze filozofija).

Ker je zivljenje nastalo kasneje in ni bilo prisotno od big banga naprej, je torej lahko le posledica naravnih procesov. Q.E.D.
Se popolnoma stinjam. Kljub temu, da je stvar popolnoma enostavna, jo nekateri nočejo ali pa celo ne zmorejo razumeti (govorim na splošno).

User avatar
MAVER|CK
Posts: 880
Joined: 27.5.2005 16:34
Contact:

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by MAVER|CK » 5.3.2010 11:52

Aniviller wrote:Stvar je popolnoma enostavna: od nastanka vesolja naprej je vesolje deterministicno (se pokorava fizikalnim zakonom) in tukaj ni nobene "luknje" v zakonu ki bi dopuscale poseganje visje sile. Torej, o bogu in stvarjenju lahko spekuliras edino pri samem nastanku vesolja, potem stvari tecejo naprej same kot ura (pa se tam izgubis tla pod nogami ko gledas stvar kot prostor-cas... tako da "bog" pride v kozmologijo le preko vprasanj tipa "zakaj je vesolje ravno tako kot je" in podobno... to je pa ze filozofija).

Ker je zivljenje nastalo kasneje in ni bilo prisotno od big banga naprej, je torej lahko le posledica naravnih procesov. Q.E.D.
Kapo dol! Svetovno povedano in takoj sprejeto. Tole bi še Perry Marshall-a prepričal, da njegova teorija plava po vodi:).

Sam jaz osebno sem še vedno mišlenja, da je tudi sam začetek nekako vkomponiran v same fizikalne zakone, razen če je začetek postavil fizikalne zakone in jih prej ni bilo oziroma so bili drugačne.

Sam dostikrat gledam vesolje kot življenski cikel človeka in problem je v tem, da se človek lahko spomne le od takrat naprej, ko se je rodil (tako so zapisi za nastanek vesolja le od big banhga naprej - vse ostale informacije so pa možne le tistim, ki so zunaj našega opazovanega vesolja in mi naprimer nikakor ne moremo do njih), pa čeprav je njegov začetek mnogo daljši (od obeh spolnih celic naprej) ampak vseeno se je nekje začel z nekim namenom in nekim smislom, tako sklepam, da vesolje ni brez smisla in je bilo narejeno z določenim namenom.

User avatar
MAVER|CK
Posts: 880
Joined: 27.5.2005 16:34
Contact:

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by MAVER|CK » 5.3.2010 12:30

Tule še avtor navaja kaj vse mora biti pošlihtano, da lahko nastane življenje (sicer po mojem on ni upošteval tega, da je tudi kakšno drugo življenje lahko inteligentno in da za življenje ni vedno nujen kisik (živali na vrelcih na dnu morja živijo s pomočjo žvepla namesto kisika):

We live in a Special Solar System, Too

We can extend this argument of design from the universe to the solar system itself. When we look at the solar system, we discover that we have a heavenly body problem. It's not that easy to get the right galaxy.

Life can only happen on late born stars. If it's a first or second-generation star, then life is impossible because you don't yet have the heavy elements necessary for life chemistry. There's a narrow window of time in the history of the universe when life can happen.

If the universe is too old or too young, life is impossible. Only spiral galaxies produce stars late enough in their history that they can take advantage of the elements that are essential for life history, and only 6% of the galaxies in our universe are spiral galaxies. Of those 6%, you must go with galaxies that produce all of the elements that are essential for life. It's not that easy.

Besides Hydrogen and Helium, the other elements are made in the cores of super giant stars. Super giant stars burn up quickly; they're gone in a just a few million years. When they go through the final stages of burning up their fuel, they explode ashes into outer space, and future generations of stars will absorb those ashes.

Births & Deaths of Multiple Stars Required to have Metals in Earth's Crust

When those stars go through their burning phase, they will take that heavy element ash material. This time when they explode, they make a whole bunch of material, capable of forming rocky planets and supporting life chemistry.

But we want these supernovae exploding early in the history of the galaxy. We don't want them going off now. If the star Cereus goes Super Nova, we're in serious trouble because it's only eight light years away. It would exterminate life on our planet.

We observe in our galaxy that there was a burst of Super Nova explosions early in its history, but it tapered off to where it isn't a threat to life that is now in existence. The Super Nova explosions took place in the right quantity and in the right locations so that life could happen here on Earth.

What does location have to do with it? Life is impossible in the center of our galaxy, or in the heel of our galaxy. It's only possible at a distance 2/3 from the center of our galaxy.

Mormon Astronomy - Accurate or not?

That's why I'm not a Mormon. Mormons tell us that life originated on a master planet right smack at the center of our galaxy. That's probably also why I've never met a Mormon astronomer.

The stars at the center of our galaxy are jammed so tightly together that the mutual gravity would destroy the planetary orbits. Moreover, their synchrotron radiation would be destructive to life molecules. But we don't want to be too far away from the center, either. If we get too far away, then there aren't enough heavy elements from the exploded remains of supernovae to enable life chemistry to proceed.

There's one life essential element that the supernovae do not make, however, and that's Fluorine. Fluorine is made only on the surfaces of white dwarf binaries. A white dwarf is a burned out star. It's like a cinder in a fireplace, just glowing.

Orbiting this white dwarf is a star that hasn't yet exhausted its nuclear fuel. It's an ordinary star, like our Sun. The white dwarf has enough mass relative to the ordinary star orbiting around it that it is capable of pulling mass off of the surface of the ordinary star and dragging it down so that it falls on its surface. When that material falls on the surface of the while dwarf, it ignites some very interesting nuclear reactions that produce Fluorine.

We need a white dwarf binary whose gravitational interactions between the white dwarf and the ordinary star are such that a strong enough stellar wind is sent from the white dwarf to blast the Fluorine beyond the gravitational pull of both stars, putting it into outer space, so that future generations of stars can absorb it. Then we have enough Fluorine for life chemistry.

A Trillion Galaxies - but as far as physicists know, only ours can support life

Two American astrophysicists concluded about a year ago that rare indeed is the galaxy that has the right number of this special kind white dwarf binary pair in the right location, occurring at the right time, so that life can exist today. The universe contains a trillion galaxies. But ours may be the only one that has the necessary conditions for life to exist.

The right star is needed. We can't have a star any bigger than our Sun. The bigger the star, the more rapidly and erratically it burns its fuel. Our Sun is just small enough to keep a stable enough flame for a sufficient period of time to make life possible. If it were any bigger, we couldn't have life on planet Earth. If it were any smaller, we'd be in trouble, too.

Smaller stars are even more stable than our star, the Sun, but they don't burn as hot. In order to keep our planet at the right temperature necessary to sustain life, we'd have to bring the planet closer to the star.

Tidal Forces

The physicists in the audience realize that when you bring a planet closer to its star, the tidal interaction between the star and the planet goes up to the inverse fourth power to the distance separating them. For those of you who are not physicists, that means that all you have to do is bring that planet ever so much closer to the star, and the tidal forces could be strong enough to break the rotational period.

That's what happened to Mercury and Venus. Those planets are too close to the Sun; so close that their rotational periods have been broken, from several hours to several months.

Earth is just barely far enough away to avoid that breaking. We have a rotation period of once every 24 hours. If we wait much longer, it will be every 26 or 28 hours, because the Earth's rotation rate is slowing down.

Going back in history, we can measure the time when the Earth was rotating every 20 hours. When the Earth was rotating once every 20 hours, human life was not possible. If it rotates once every 28 hours, human life will not be possible. It can only happen at 24 hours.

Speed of Earth's Rotation

If the planet rotates too quickly, you get too many tornadoes and hurricanes. If it rotates too slowly, it gets too cold at night and too hot during the day. We don't want it to be 170 degrees during the day, nor do we want it to be below –100 at night, because that's not ideal for life.

We don't want lots of hurricanes and tornadoes, either. What we currently have is an ideal situation, and God plays this. He created us here at the ideal time.

We need the right Earth. If the Earth is too massive, it retains a bunch of gases such as Ammonia, Methane, Hydrogen and Helium in its atmosphere. These gases are not acceptable for life, at least, not for advanced life. But if it's not massive enough, it won't retain water. For life to exist on planet Earth, we need a huge amount of water, but we don't need a lot of ammonia and methane.

Remember high school chemistry? Methane's molecular weight 16, ammonia's molecular weight 17, water's molecular weight is 18. God so designed planet Earth that we keep lots of the 18, but we don't keep any of the 16 or the 17. The incredible fine-tuning of the physical characteristics of Earth is necessary for that.

Jupiter Necessary, too

We even have to have the right Jupiter. We wrote about this in our Facts and Faith newsletter a few issues back, but it was also discovered by American astrophysicists just this past year. Unless you have a very massive planet like Jupiter, five times more distant from the star than the planet that has life, life will not exist on that planet.

It takes a super massive planet like Jupiter, located where it is, to act as a shield, guarding the Earth from comic collisions. We don't want a comet colliding with Earth every week. Thanks to Jupiter, that doesn't happen.

What these astrophysicists discovered in their models of planetary formation was that it's a very rare star system indeed that produces a planet as massive as Jupiter, in the right location, to act as such a shield.

We Even Need the Right Moon

The Earth's moon system is that of a small planet being orbited by a huge, single moon. That huge, single moon has the effect of stabilizing the rotation axis of planet Earth to 23½ degrees. That's the ideal tilt for life on planet Earth.

The axis on planet Mars moves through a tilt from zero to 60 degrees and flips back and forth. If that were to happen on Earth, life would be impossible. Thanks to the Moon, it's held stable at 23 ½ degrees.

Just as with the universe, in the case of the solar system, we can attach numbers to these. In this case, I've chosen to be extremely conservative in my estimates. I would feel justified in sticking a few zeros between the decimal point and the one. I would feel justified in making this 20 percent, 10 percent, for example, and on down the line.

We Even Need the Right Number of Earthquakes

I've got so many characteristics here, and I let the Californians know that you have to have the right number of earthquakes. Not too many, not too few, or life is not possible. I share them with my wife, who doesn't like earthquakes, but I just tell her that when you feel a good jolt, that's when you have to thank God for his perfect providence.

User avatar
fogl
Posts: 545
Joined: 7.11.2004 20:25
Location: Radovljica

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by fogl » 5.3.2010 12:32

Meni se pa stvari vseeno ne zdijo popolnoma enostavne in kristalno jasne, sploh kar se tiče evolucije. Nekatere stvari/sposobnosti živih bitjih se mi zdijo take, da se nikakor ne bi mogle razviti s pomočjo evolucije... recimo en primer: sonar pri delfinih - delfin je moral sočasno "razvit"/mutirat nek organ za oddajanje zvoka, nek organ za sprejemanje zvoka in še možgane da so vse te signale pravilno interpretirali. Dokler vse to ni usklajeno delovalo je bilo to samo tratenje resoursov za prazen nič, kar bi pomenilo slabše sposobnosti od ostalih "normalnih" takrat živečih primerkov, ki so bili še brez sonarja. Zaradi slabših sposobnosti v vmesni fazi razvoja pa bi ti mutiranci bili na slabšem in ne bi preživeli.

User avatar
Aniviller
Posts: 7263
Joined: 15.11.2004 18:16

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by Aniviller » 5.3.2010 13:07

Sam jaz osebno sem še vedno mišlenja, da je tudi sam začetek nekako vkomponiran v same fizikalne zakone, razen če je začetek postavil fizikalne zakone in jih prej ni bilo oziroma so bili drugačne.
Seveda se strinjam, ko prostor in cas zdruzis je zacetek cisto enakovreden vsaki drugi tocki. Samo za laicno razumevanje (ali huje: za skeptike) je bolje da ostanes v linearnem razumevanju casa ker drugace pri prici nehajo poslusat.


fogl: ni nujno, da se to razvije socasno. Recimo oddajanje glasov rabis itak za sporazumevanje - boljse je, bolje za delfina. Sluh prav tako (in stereo sluh je ze nekaksen predhodnik sonarja). Tako da za sonar rabis zgolj eno mutacijo naenkrat: tisto v mozganih ki izboljsa procesiranje vhodnih signalov. Podobno velja za vse evolucijske korake. Kdaj se zgodita tudi dve mutaciji in tako dobis vecji skok - ampak taki dogodki so pac statisticno redkejsi. Seveda moras razumeti, da majhne mutacije nimajo nekih drasticnih posledic in ponavadi traja vec sto generacij da se prednost pozna in zacne delovat selekcija (da potomci prvega mutanta zacnejo izpodrivat ostale). Tako da "socasnost" mutacij ne pomeni dve mutaciji v enem osebku ampak dve mutaciji dovolj blizu skupaj - lahko tudi par sto let.

amanita
Posts: 3
Joined: 24.2.2010 19:13

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by amanita » 7.3.2010 11:23

problemi wrote:
MAVER|CK wrote:Sam sej tud samodejni nastanek življenja ni dokazan! Če je že evolucija dokazana po Darwinu!
Pa saj teorija evolucije to dokazuje. Razen, če ne verjameš v kreacijo nekoga ali nečesa. Ampak, koga?
Teorija evolucije ne razlaga nastanka življenja. Teorij nastanka življenja je več in tudi kredibilni znanstveniki si glede razlage življenja še niso enotni.

Roman
Posts: 6243
Joined: 21.10.2003 8:03

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by Roman » 7.3.2010 11:42

O evoluciji lahko govorimo v ožjem, darwinskem smislu, ki ne govori o nastanku življenja, ali v širšem smislu, ki nastanek življenja vključuje. Znanstveniki si sicer res niso enotni (žal tu igrajo vlogo tudi verski predsodki), se pa čedalje bolj nagibajo k teorji abiogeneze, po kateri je živo nastalo iz neživega.

User avatar
MAVER|CK
Posts: 880
Joined: 27.5.2005 16:34
Contact:

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by MAVER|CK » 8.3.2010 12:32

Prvič čujem za ta izraz. Drugače pa poznam zadevo o formiranju membrane in nato posledičnem tvorjenju nekega organizma. Samo zame je to glih tako zapleten postopek in glih tako nerazumljiv kot je sam veliki pok.

Zaključek: Manjka zunanji opazovalec, oziroma dokazi, ki bi jih mi lahko videli, prebrali, doumeli:).

problemi
Posts: 4931
Joined: 24.8.2009 1:20

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by problemi » 8.3.2010 16:15

MAVER|CK wrote:Prvič čujem za ta izraz. Drugače pa poznam zadevo o formiranju membrane in nato posledičnem tvorjenju nekega organizma. Samo zame je to glih tako zapleten postopek in glih tako nerazumljiv kot je sam veliki pok.

Zaključek: Manjka zunanji opazovalec, oziroma dokazi, ki bi jih mi lahko videli, prebrali, doumeli:).
Abiogeneza:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

O kakšnem opazovalcu govoriš?

gnu
Posts: 111
Joined: 1.3.2010 12:20

Re: DNK in Bog

Post by gnu » 8.3.2010 21:01

Trditi, da se življenje ne more samo razviti iz neživega (v 2.5 miljardah let) je po mojem podobno kot trditi, da so sodobne računalnike na Zemljo prinesli Marsovci, ker bi jih bilo nemogoče razviti brez pomoči računalnikov! Računalnike je vendar mogoče načrtovati in izdelati le s pomočjo drugih računalnikov in robotske tehnologije, to pa je problem kure in jajca!

Leto 2500, crackpot zgodovinar Ian Cretoist objavi teorijo, da je računalnike ustvaril Bog. Dokaz: nemogoče je, da bi primitivna ljudstva, ki so živela okrog leta 1950, z orodji kot so leseno logaritemsko računalo, mehanske stružnice in materiali kot so les, aluminij, železo, usnje, nenadoma 'odkrila' mikroprocesorske računalnike,nanotehnologije, manipulacijo snovi na osnovnem nivoju, laser, itd., ker je to nemogoče brez uporabe računalnika! In to sredi vojne, ki je divjala po vsem svetu, in izčrpala že tako skromne vire. Ker preprosto vemo, in to so pokazali številni laboratorijski poskusi, da nikomur še ni uspelo s tako preprostimi ročnimi orodji izdelati računalnika, kompleksnejšega od nekaj logičnih vrat, vsi pa vemo, da je od tega do najpreprostejših uporabnih strojev razlika 100.000.000.000 - krat.

Post Reply