Evolucija ili kreacija?

Šta je tačno?

  • Ukupno glasova
    63
  • Anketa je zatvorena .
stanje
Zatvorena za pisanje odgovora.
Djordje Petrovic 8:
Sta pise, koliko je star? Vecina vernika ovde pise da je toliko. Samo konstatuje. Sta ti kazes?
Kliknite za proširenje...
Нигдје у Библији не пише колико је земља стара, а ја се свакако не бих упуштао у таква тумачења, него реци ми шта отац теорије релативитета каже за вријеме, да ли је константно?
 
LazaB:
Nisu budale , vecina tih verika priznaje da to sto oni imaju nije znanje nego vera.
Kliknite za proširenje...
:D Aли зашто вјерују, видим да нећеш да превалиш ово, може овако, да ли је њихова вјера рационалнa или ирационална, да ли се то заснива на некој спознаји или на машти и превари?
 
Koslav75:
:D Aли зашто вјерују, видим да нећеш да превалиш ово, може овако, да ли је њихова вјера рационалнa или ирационална, да ли се то заснива на некој спознаји или на машти и превари?
Kliknite za proširenje...
Veruju iz zelje za odgovorima i zelje za utehom , ja znam licno ljude sa kojima sam ulazio u rasprave o religiji par puta i koj su mi rekli da je glavni razlog za njihovu veru jednostavno zelja za verom , zele da imaju tu utehu da ih neko gleda i da smrt nije kraj.
Postoje samo manje i vise uspesne religije , neke uspeju da se rasire neke ne uspeju , na svetu postoji i skoro 2 milijarde muslimana i vise od milijardu Hinduista , i stotine miliona pripadnika manje uspesnih vera , mada vecina pripadnika tih religija veruje u to zato sto su ih tako ucili roditelji od malih nogu.
 
Složio bih se da mnogi veruju jer žele da veruju da smrt nije kraj.

Odgovorio bih na još nešto od pre 2 strane, u vezi toga da 2000 i više godina ljudi veruju u nešto krajnje nelogično, ja lično i ono što meni smeta je da je devica rodila, razumem ja da su bila drugačija vremena ali pobogu zar nije moglo biti objašnjeno na bilo koji drugi način (ovo je uvreda za inteligenciju svakoga).

I treće što bih dodao (onako generalno) je da niko ne traži striktno razdvajanje ili-ili već prema mom mišljenju i treba da pokušamo i da nastavimo da pokušavamo da spojimo veru i nauku, možda nam se "nešto kaže" samo.
 
LazaB:
Svemir ne mora da bude ovoliko veliki niti da ima ovoliko galaksija da bi opstao i uslovi za radjanje nase vrste su steceni milionima godina pre nego sto smo nastali a uz Boga su mogli da nastanu i ranije , tako da to meni nema smisla i dalje.
Nisu za dzabe ljudi verovali da je nasa planeta centar svemira i da su ljudi gazde svim zivim bicima i da su stvoreni posebno i da je ovo jedini solarni sistem i da je nasa planeta jedina dobra za zivot itd.
Sva ta verovanja su ukazivala na to da je sve stvoreno zbog nas , svako to verovanje je pobijeno naukom.
Kliknite za proširenje...

nisi u toku nauke


IS THE UNIVERSE FULL OF "WASTED" SPACE?

Why did God make the universe so big? Why so much extra space if it’s just us? This is a question that both skeptics and believers have often asked, including myself. After all, why does there need to be a universe with some fifty billion trillion stars, which comprise merely one percent of the total mass?
Stephen Hawking raised this question years ago in his book A Brief History of Time. He suggested the vast size of our universe seems a waste. And Carl Sagan famously said, “The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.” Sagan suggested its size is good reason to believe there are other life forms in the universe.
Whether or not life exists in other parts of the universe, it turns out that the size of the universe is carefully calibrated and necessary for life’s existence on planet Earth. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explains this phenomenon in his recent book Improbable Planet. He writes:
However, ongoing research has given us good reasons—all relevant to life’s existence—for the massiveness of the cosmos. We need it for essential construction materials.
The initial mass density of matter’s building blocks—protons and neutrons (called baryons. collectively)—critically impacted what happened the first few minutes of the universe’s existence. That’s when hydrogen, the lightest element, fused into the next heavier elements, helium and lithium. The amount of helium and lithium produced at the time then determined how much planet-and life-building material (the elements essential for life) could be produced later on within the nuclear furnace of stars.
If the universe contained a slightly lower mass density of protons and neutrons, then nuclear fusion in stellar furnaces would have yielded no elements as heavy as carbon or heavier; if a slightly greater mass density, then stars burning would have yielded only elements as heavy as iron or heavier. Either way, the universe would have lacked the elements most critical for our planet and its life—carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and more. For life to be possible, the universe must be no more or less massive than it is.[1]
Simply put, given the laws of physics in our universe, we need a universe as massive as it is for the construction of the materials that make life possible on our planet. If the universe were much smaller or bigger, we would not exist.
It turns out the universe is not full of wasted space. In fact, if the universe were not this massive, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and the rest of us could never even have been here to reflect upon it. Thank God we live in such a big universe.
[1] Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016), 24.
 
Cackalica21:
nisi u toku nauke


IS THE UNIVERSE FULL OF "WASTED" SPACE?

Why did God make the universe so big? Why so much extra space if it’s just us? This is a question that both skeptics and believers have often asked, including myself. After all, why does there need to be a universe with some fifty billion trillion stars, which comprise merely one percent of the total mass?
Stephen Hawking raised this question years ago in his book A Brief History of Time. He suggested the vast size of our universe seems a waste. And Carl Sagan famously said, “The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.” Sagan suggested its size is good reason to believe there are other life forms in the universe.
Whether or not life exists in other parts of the universe, it turns out that the size of the universe is carefully calibrated and necessary for life’s existence on planet Earth. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explains this phenomenon in his recent book Improbable Planet. He writes:
However, ongoing research has given us good reasons—all relevant to life’s existence—for the massiveness of the cosmos. We need it for essential construction materials.
The initial mass density of matter’s building blocks—protons and neutrons (called baryons. collectively)—critically impacted what happened the first few minutes of the universe’s existence. That’s when hydrogen, the lightest element, fused into the next heavier elements, helium and lithium. The amount of helium and lithium produced at the time then determined how much planet-and life-building material (the elements essential for life) could be produced later on within the nuclear furnace of stars.
If the universe contained a slightly lower mass density of protons and neutrons, then nuclear fusion in stellar furnaces would have yielded no elements as heavy as carbon or heavier; if a slightly greater mass density, then stars burning would have yielded only elements as heavy as iron or heavier. Either way, the universe would have lacked the elements most critical for our planet and its life—carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and more. For life to be possible, the universe must be no more or less massive than it is.[1]
Simply put, given the laws of physics in our universe, we need a universe as massive as it is for the construction of the materials that make life possible on our planet. If the universe were much smaller or bigger, we would not exist.
It turns out the universe is not full of wasted space. In fact, if the universe were not this massive, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and the rest of us could never even have been here to reflect upon it. Thank God we live in such a big universe.
[1] Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016), 24.
Kliknite za proširenje...
Ovo ne daje odgovor na moje pitanje , prostor i masa postoje i bez galaksija , tako da opet nije morao da stvori stotine milijardi galaksija koje nemaju nikakve veze sa nama , ogromna vecina mase u svemiru i ne dolazi odatle , tako da ti ova prica pada u vodu.

Bar je lepo videti kako prihvatas veliki prasak i evoluciju zato sto se u ovom clanku podrazumeva da je zivot nastao iz elemenata koji su se milijardama godina " kuvali " u zvezdama i posle polako nastajali na planetama koje su se formirale nakon sto su te zvezde eksplodirale i nakon sto su se postepeno formirali solarni sistemi.
 
Cackalica21:
nisi u toku nauke


IS THE UNIVERSE FULL OF "WASTED" SPACE?

Why did God make the universe so big? Why so much extra space if it’s just us? This is a question that both skeptics and believers have often asked, including myself. After all, why does there need to be a universe with some fifty billion trillion stars, which comprise merely one percent of the total mass?
Stephen Hawking raised this question years ago in his book A Brief History of Time. He suggested the vast size of our universe seems a waste. And Carl Sagan famously said, “The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.” Sagan suggested its size is good reason to believe there are other life forms in the universe.
Whether or not life exists in other parts of the universe, it turns out that the size of the universe is carefully calibrated and necessary for life’s existence on planet Earth. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explains this phenomenon in his recent book Improbable Planet. He writes:
However, ongoing research has given us good reasons—all relevant to life’s existence—for the massiveness of the cosmos. We need it for essential construction materials.
The initial mass density of matter’s building blocks—protons and neutrons (called baryons. collectively)—critically impacted what happened the first few minutes of the universe’s existence. That’s when hydrogen, the lightest element, fused into the next heavier elements, helium and lithium. The amount of helium and lithium produced at the time then determined how much planet-and life-building material (the elements essential for life) could be produced later on within the nuclear furnace of stars.
If the universe contained a slightly lower mass density of protons and neutrons, then nuclear fusion in stellar furnaces would have yielded no elements as heavy as carbon or heavier; if a slightly greater mass density, then stars burning would have yielded only elements as heavy as iron or heavier. Either way, the universe would have lacked the elements most critical for our planet and its life—carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and more. For life to be possible, the universe must be no more or less massive than it is.[1]
Simply put, given the laws of physics in our universe, we need a universe as massive as it is for the construction of the materials that make life possible on our planet. If the universe were much smaller or bigger, we would not exist.
It turns out the universe is not full of wasted space. In fact, if the universe were not this massive, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and the rest of us could never even have been here to reflect upon it. Thank God we live in such a big universe.
[1] Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016), 24.
Kliknite za proširenje...
Daj prevod, ne znam anglosaksonski.

Koslav75:
Значи теорија завјере која траје двије хиљаде година и обухвата више од двије милијарде завјереника?
Kliknite za proširenje...
Obuhvata nekoliko zaverenika i dve milijarde ispranih mozgova.
 
LazaB:
Ocigledno ne gledas mnogo TV :D
Znaci izbacili su veronauku iz skola ?
Kliknite za proširenje...
Jedino što zvanično postoji, ajde.... ali niko tamo ni ne ide....

Verski pritisak sve više i više popušta...

LazaB:
Ocigledno ne gledas mnogo TV :D
Znaci izbacili su veronauku iz skola ?
Kliknite za proširenje...
A kad kažem da su u potpunosti ateističke, mislim da je takvo nastavno osoblje i učenici. I vera se nigde ne spominje.
 
Tom Jones 1:
Kao što je moguće da 99% naučnika danas, može da poveruje da je koještarija jednog senilnog čiče iz 18.veka o prirodnoj selekciji i slučajnim mutacijama tokom milijardi godina, validna dokazana teorija o postanku vrsta. A time vređaju samo sopstvenu nisku inteligenciju.
Kliknite za proširenje...
Kao i Koslav. Blamiranje za sve pare. Pocecu da verujem da vi stvarno ic nista ne razumete. Do sada sam mislio da namerno provocirate ali.........
 
Ateista1:
Vi se trudite da ga ispirate...sad... koliko vam uspešno ide.... proceni sam...
Kliknite za proširenje...
Па двије милијарде и кусур само хришћана :per: .

Ateista5:
Kao i Koslav. Blamiranje za sve pare. Pocecu da verujem da vi stvarno ic nista ne razumete. Do sada sam mislio da namerno provocirate ali.........
Kliknite za proširenje...
Ех, нека си ми ти рекао :D .
 
stanje
Zatvorena za pisanje odgovora.

Slične teme

C
Ateizam opovrgnut - 5 argumenta za postojanje Boga
2
Odgovora
26
Pregleda
839
CiCoLiNo
CiCoLiNo
Nina
Sveti Luka ili Noć veštica?
2 3
Odgovora
55
Pregleda
830
anajade
anajade
Gedeon
Da li je pravoslavlje nacionalna ili univerzalna religija?
2 3
Odgovora
52
Pregleda
692
bas kao
B

Back
Top