Ajattelin laittaa vertailun vuoksi wikipedian artikkelit universumin ja elämän synnystä sekä kehittymisestä ja vastapainoksi artikkelin luomisesta. Vaati kyllä melkoista älyllistä epärehellisyyttä itseään kohtaan kiistää tieteelliset teoriat ja hypoteesit, joita havainnot tukevat.
Alkuräjähdys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[32] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[33] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[34][notes 3] which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years.[35] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the Universe."
Elämän synty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.[3][4] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[5][6] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[7][8]
The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms)."
Yhteinen kantamuoto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
"Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document the fact of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes."
Luominen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
"The Genesis creation narrative is a description of the creation of the world contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. As a creation myth it is markedly similar to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook.[1][2][3] As a sacred narrative it is part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity.[4]"
Tokihan on myönnettävä, että varsinkin elämän synnyn selittämisessä ja alkuräjähdyksessä on vielä isojakin aukkoja, mutta mitään sellaista ei olla havaittu, mikä tekisi ne mahdottomaksi pelkästään luonnonprosessein. Jos joku haluaa sijoittaa Jumalan luonnonlakien laatijaksi, niin se ei ole minulta pois, vaan tarkoitus oli kritisoida kirjaimellista Raamatun tulkintaa naturalistisen metodologian kustannuksella.
Alkuräjähdys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[32] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[33] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[34][notes 3] which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years.[35] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the Universe."
Elämän synty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.[3][4] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[5][6] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[7][8]
The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms)."
Yhteinen kantamuoto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
"Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document the fact of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes."
Luominen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
"The Genesis creation narrative is a description of the creation of the world contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. As a creation myth it is markedly similar to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook.[1][2][3] As a sacred narrative it is part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity.[4]"
Tokihan on myönnettävä, että varsinkin elämän synnyn selittämisessä ja alkuräjähdyksessä on vielä isojakin aukkoja, mutta mitään sellaista ei olla havaittu, mikä tekisi ne mahdottomaksi pelkästään luonnonprosessein. Jos joku haluaa sijoittaa Jumalan luonnonlakien laatijaksi, niin se ei ole minulta pois, vaan tarkoitus oli kritisoida kirjaimellista Raamatun tulkintaa naturalistisen metodologian kustannuksella.
Vastaukset 4
Vanhimmat
Alkuräjähdysteoria tukee Genesistäm "Alussa loi Jumala taivaan ja maan..."
Abiogeneesijuttusi on pelkkää perhapsia koko tarina.
Yhteinen kantamuoto juttusi on taas pelkkää hypoteesia ja theoriaa.
Joten jäljelle jää vain Genesis jota ei kukaan hoksannut tuossa kumota.
Enpä kyllä jaksaisi sinun kanssa väitellä, koska tiedän sinun vain trollaavan, mutta sivullisia lukijoita ajatellen vastaan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
"The dispute is between those who, despite contrary evidence, support a creationist view based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept evolution, as supported by scientific consensus. The dispute particularly involves the field of evolutionary biology, but also the fields of geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology."
"Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is essentially universal,[8] while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields."
"The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion. However, as the National Academy of Sciences states:
Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.
—National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism"
Myös tämä palstalla jo useasti linkitetty artikkeli olisi deanialistienkin hyvä tavata läpi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
"The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[32]"
Ei tue. Alkuräjähdyksessä syntyi taivas (havaitsemamme avaruusaika sekä energia), mutta ei pitkään aikaan vielä maata.
Tuollaiseenko taivaaseen sitten harvat ja valitut pääsevät kuolemansa jälkeen?