|
|
|
|
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 376 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 9:46:12 AM | I think there is frequently a bias describing world history through a particular cultural/religious viewpoint, in this case a euro-centric one. Many cultures and religions have contributed to the foundation of knowledge we currently stand on.
For example, the polytheistic Egyptian culture made incredible advances in engineering, and agriculture.
The Mayan culture (also polytheistic) in Central America created an interlocking lunar and solar calendar so accurate, that predictions of eclipses and comet orbits are still on today.
In the Islamic world, in the 7th century, science and technology flourished, where in the west they floundered. Greek philosophy and science texts where translated. Scientific exploration was furthered in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, pharmacology, optics, chemistry, gravity, botany, philosophy, and physics. Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna, 980-1037) wrote the al-Qanun fi al-Tibb (Canons of Medicine) that first identified the contagious nature of tuberculosis, described meningitis, and gave the eye’s anatomy. By the 12th century, the Canons had been translated into Latin, and European medicine relied on this text into the 1700s. Many credit the Muslims protection and furthering of knowledge with assisting Europe in it emergence from the Dark Ages into the Renaissance. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/themes/science/)
Until roughly the 14th century, China (when they entered an isolationist phase) contributed to economic and scientific growth in the Middle East and Europe. They’re credited with many inventions such as paper and printing, gunpowder, porcelain, the magnetic compass, the sternpost rudder, and lift lock canals. I’m reading a nautical history of China that suggests they may have circumnavigated the world a century before Magellan (and created navigational techniques to measure latitude and longitude in the process).
It’s far too easy to argue that your own religious/cultural group is to be credited for the world’s advances. Civilizations rise and fall, knowledge is gain, lost, rediscovered and past to other cultures. How much had to be rediscovered when the Great Library burnt? The elite class, often able to write and encouraged to research, has included priests, monks, aristocracy, eunuchs, scribes and the occasional patent clerk ;)
Then as now, we are interconnected. Did Christian’s contribute to science? Of course, but so did Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists and many people of religions whose names and gods have been lost to the passage of time.
As Newton once said,
“If I can see farther, it is because I stand on the shoulder of giants.”
Remember, we all stand on each other's shoulders. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 11:34:03 AM | While I didn't finish my post but my statements weren't that any one religion contributed to science. My stastemnets were that people have an assumption that you can not combine science and religion. When religion and the quest for knowledge has contributed in major ways. Most of the early scientists were religious.
My posts were, basically, the history of religion in science. That's all. The post was from a guy who did a historical study on how religion contributed to science. It's just that Christian scientists has contributed more to the studies of science.
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 11:50:50 AM | Well I did not want to repeat myself but I have to I guess . I mentioned before that God does not need Evolution. Evolution requires long ages of suffering, struggle and violent death. God is Love. Why would loving God allow it? God does not want anyone to suffer. People do bad stuff all by themselves and then blame God. Now about scientific stuff. There are 20 different amino acids. Scientists cannot make 3 key amino acids in the lab. The way amino acids are made in the test tube (using heat, gases, electricity or ultra violet rays) will destroy other amino acids. Many are destroyed by heat. Others are broken down by oxygen and other acids. Even if the Earth was the way Evolutionists say, the formed amino acids would quickly be destroyed. Without the protection provided by being in the cell amino acids have no chance of survival at all. Porphyrins are molecules in hemoglobin, the element in the red blood cell that carries oxygen. Without porphyrins oxygen breaks down other chemicals in the cell. Porphyrins are made when there is free oxygen in the atmosphere. Amino acids are made when there is no free oxygen in the atmosphere. Those 2 cannot exist at the same time in the same place and both are needed in order for the cell to survive. Without either of them the cell dies immediately. It has no chance in hell to live and evolve. They combine in the test tube and destroy each other. Both are needed to be in the living cell where they do not destroy each other. Now DNA. In order to make DNA you heed to have DNA in the first place. DNA is the code that cell used to reproduce the proteins of which cells are composed. That code also tells the cell how to make more DNA. Forget the RNA world . It was proven in the lab that it does not work. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 12:24:43 PM | | I didn't finish my post. I had to take care of something. Continuing about amino acids. The amasing puzzle in biology is the fact of formation of proteins. Proteins are long threads made up of chains of amino acids. There are between 100 and 50000 different amino acid links in each protein chain. Each of this amino acids is made up of different atoms attached to one side of another atom. Each different amino acid had a different side group. And ALL the amino acids in living things are "left-handed" (it is called the problem of chirality by Evolutionists). In the lab half of amino acids are right handed, half left. Right handed amino acid terminates the link and the cell would die. The proteins cannot form like this. No one ever made a single protein in the lab. Because amino acids racemize. They (scientists) add already optically pure amino acids when they make the experiments. and then they claim they proved evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 12:52:29 PM | | I forgot to mention something. They do make proteins in the lab but not from scratch. Scientists isolate left handed amino acids first. Then they add those optically pure amino acids during their experiments. Those optically pure amino acids cannot isolate themselves by themselves. They quickly racemize in the test tube making it impossible to assemble protein from scratch there. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 1:07:33 PM | Ah, Jimmy, and what does this has to do with the topic?
It's a nice view of how science has progressed from "forms and essences" to material observations and thus to our current scientific skepticism of always asking questions.
And Optimistic Alyssa, rather then whining that no one believes as you do and are always putting you down. How about some PROOF or even a little bit of logic (like answers to post # four). Rather then just pointing out all the things you do not understand about evolution. The reason so many scoff at the religious point of veiw is that it is all based on "Some one told me". And no one seems able to point out the "some one" so that we can verify. The topic here, after all, is why Creation should be thought/taught as science?
God does not want anyone to suffer.
Ah then what about the Flood, as that is one place where creation stumbles?
And I for one am with Dharma in wondering why Religion and Science are at logger heads when both are looking for the same thing, The Truth. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 1:26:50 PM | Well, I was just gonna bite my tongue, but I can't catch it - it just keeps flapping.
Jimmy - I'm sorry, but that one is just too naive to even comment on. Respect all who have contributed to what we are today instead just promoting your buddies. What's the point anyway? Justifying a master race based on Christianity?
Alyssa - science is about what is POSSIBLE. You just seem to be telling us what is IMPOSSIBLE. I just don't believe your impossible and science seems to be doing a reasonable job at whittling away at the world of the impossible by explaining it. Science isn't about the existence or not of God. It's about figuring out how He did what he did.
You make good points worthy of answers, even though I believe you claim to be a 'Young Earth' creationist and probably feel very much at odds with evolution. I'm sure we'll never convince you otherwise, but if you need to hear me acknowledge that God could have created the world in 6 days, check out my message #302 on page 13 of this thread. Maybe going into Quantum Physics as a career option would reconcile everyone - and keep Trewq happy!
Racemates are easy to separate into their individual isomers as Pasteur demonstrated. You just crystallize them. High school chemistry! A self-organizing system at the chemical level?
Yes, the appearance of proteins is a facinating puzzle. Doesn't make it impossible. As for them being oxidized. Are you assuming that there was oxygen around back then? More likely carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, Nitrogen but I think that's still controversial. What about the evolution of life around benthic vents? - based on hydrogen sulphide metabalolism. Not sure about the oxygen content down there.
There is also a common assumption that life started out carbon based, with sugars and amino acids. The role of crystalline structures, especially iron pyrites and the use of hydrogen sulphide as a metabolite in prebiotic evolution offer clues to simpler 'life'.
A reasonably balance review may be:
Pontes-Buarque M, Tessis AC, Bonapace JA, Monte MB, Souza-Barros FD, Vieyra A. Surface charges and interfaces: implications for mineral roles in prebiotic chemistry. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2000 Sep;72(3):317-22.
And a more recent discussion:
Tributsch H, Fiechter S, Jokisch D, Rojas-Chapana J, Ellmer K. Photoelectrochemical power, chemical energy and catalytic activity for organic evolution on natural pyrite interfaces. Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2003 Apr;33(2):129-62.
Since Trewk raised skepticism again - and Alyssa seems to find it discomforting, let me point out that skepticism isn't about not believing - it's about needing more information.
OUCH! - finally got that tongue
Edit .. Lol metabalolism - well, it was underwater, so it probably sounded a little bubbly! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 1:31:09 PM |
Do we invent our own evolution?
Do we invent the spherical shape of the Earth?
Do we invent our fingers?
Do we invent gas when we eat mexican food? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 1:32:20 PM | Ah, but the flood wasn't something God wanted. It was necessary.
Genesis 6:5- And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of HIS HEART WAS ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY.
6- And it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth, and it greived him at his heart.
7-And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8-But God found grace in the eyes of Noah.
Now those passages make me wonder.Notice how it says " in the earth" or " of the earth". Is this a suggestion of man somewhere else? Is it possible that God had already formed man in heaven?
I have heard that everything already exist to God. He has already made everything and that the only reason that it doesn't exist to us is because it hasn't came to pass yet. There is a time and place for everything. I wonder if those passages are a suggestion toward that?
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 1:42:07 PM | QueitJohn,
I'm not promoting anything. And I'm certainly not saying that Christianity is the ONLY people that contributed to science. If you reread all my posts. All that I'm saying is that Christianity doesn't go against science. There are fundamentalists who go against science for Christianity but they do not understand how science works. Science is just seeking the truth. So is Christianity.
All my posts are saying is that Christians have donated to science. My posts are basicall for anyone who thinks that Christians and science can not coinciede. We all seek the truth. But there is a worldveiw that Christians are against science since some don't agree with evolution. Evolution is a theory just like creation is. Either one hasn't been proven or dis-proven.
How do we know God didn't create things in the beginning just to evolve? How do we know it isn't his purpose?
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 2:29:38 PM | Dear trewq36! Do you have Ph.D in physical chemistry? What you have criticised was written by person who has such a degree. Jonathan Sarfati obtained honors level in physical and inorganic chemistry as well as in condensed matter physics and nuclear physics. He received Ph.D in physical chemistry. I put what he wrote in my own words of course. there is another guy who received Ph. D from the university of Minesota. For 25 years he served on the faculties of major universities including 13 years as a chairman of Civil Engineering department. His name is Henry Morris and he wrote a book" Biblical basis for modern science". Do you think you are smarter than these people? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 2:38:04 PM | QueitJohn Hey, Jimmy, quit calling me names!
I think your last post clarifies your position and echoes a sentiment felt by many people posting here - thanks.
We should pick on Dryad too......
The elite class... You didn't really mean that, did you? Mendel comes immediately to mind. Monk, yes, but to escape poverty. Faraday - a blacksmith's son. George Washington Carver - a slave? Even Newton couldn't have been considered elite and certainly doesn't seem to have been treated with much respect until people other than his family recognized his talents.
And Alyssa - A Ph.D. doesn't qualify you to be right or wrong - As someone with a Ph.D., I'd think anyone who unconditionally believed anything I said and then attempted to paraphrase it to someone else was quite nuts - for both of their actions. And I've seen 'sequential paraphrasing' in scientific publications which totally misrepresented the statements of the original authors. I don't think it's healthy to believe what people say - just assimilate it into your own thoughts and understanding.
Now I'm gonna go sit in my corner and hope something hard and fast moving doesn't decide to occupy it with me! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 2:42:30 PM | | And besides you know nothing about me. I might be a scientist, you never know . About God's judgement. Muslim person approached me not long ago and told me I am an infidel and will go to hell unless I become Muslim. In every religion there is judgement of God. People go out of their way to critisize Christianity but many religions have hell and God's judgement , sufferings and stuff like that. Christian God (Jesus) offered Himself as a sacrifice for us while "pagan" gods demand OUR sacrifice for them. The thing is that God loves us and does not want us to suffer etc. Noah's flood happened in the Old Testament. Noah was telling people for 100 years that the flood was to come and he invited them on the ark. The "door" was opened to EVERYONE. But no one came. Then flood came. God gave people plenty of chance to be on the ark but they did not want to come because they did not believe it. Flood came and it was too late. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 2:51:24 PM | | ^^^Just as well everyone didn't turn up... how much bigger would the ark have to have been to accommodate them all? Sounds way too much like a fairy story. At least the holes in it should be big enough to make it seem that way! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 2:59:27 PM | well I don't think God wanted anyone on that boat actually until he saw grace in Noah. It says in the Bible that everyone, except Noah, was following every wicked imagination of their heart. Can you possibly comprehend a world where EVERYONE follows ONLY evil continually. No chance for good. All evil. If you can concieve this then you can concieve the world at that time. That sounds like a very scary place to me. Everybody following every EVIL IMAGINATION of their heart. Just try to imagine a world where EVERYONE is continually following evil imaginations. I'm excedingly glad that a world like that doesn't esixt. Could you imagine being in a world like that, let alone, raising a family in a world like that?
What kind of evil imaginations do you think a person can come up with?
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 3:12:15 PM | Well I heard one Bible scholar say that God wanted to save EVERYONE. "For God is not willing that ANYONE should perish". That's why Noah for 100 years was telling people about flood and invited them on the ark. Why else he would talk about the flood and talk about saving them? What's the point? God knew that people will not believe him. That explaines the size of the ark. God created everyone and loves everyone . God loves you. Yes, you . We all are not perfect and we never going to be perfect on this earth but God loves us anyway. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 3:16:24 PM | | I'll say one thing for you Jimmy you have a magnificent imagination. I'll keep mine for fiction. Actually I'll tell you something... one of the topics for discussion in my BA English 'reading fiction' was Genesis, when I enquired why this was being used as an example was I was informed: "Because it was one of the best examples of fiction anyone could read." (unquote) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 3:21:15 PM | | P. S. Quiet John, I like your profile. Very interesting | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 3:24:08 PM | | Skypoetone, this is just your personal oppinion, nothing else . Jews, Muslims and christians confirm Genesis account (one way or another). Unless you think you know more than those people | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 3:37:52 PM | Alyssa,
I think that God wanted everyone to be rigtheouss from the beginning. But by the time of the flood it specifically says that the world was full of evil. People lived every imagination of their heart. In this I think God would hope that some would change but knew there was no chance. That is why he made the Ark a certain size and thats it. He knew there was no hope for mankind. God being a just God had to flood the world in order to save mankind. If he didn't mankind would have eventually killed themselfs off and there would have been no hope for the future of mankind. Being that God saw grace in Noah He chose Noah to save mankind. There was no other possible solution. Even when Noah preached the flood no one believed him. God knows the heart of men. We can lie to each other but we can not lie to God because he knows our hearts. He had hoped that Noah would be able to save some but He also knew that their was no hope for mankind except for Noah.
Can you imagine what kind of courage it took to worship God in a world like that? And what kind of courage it took for Noah to preach the flood?
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 4:41:41 PM |
Skypoetone, this is just your personal oppinion, nothing else . Jews, Muslims and christians confirm Genesis account (one way or another). Unless you think you know more than those people
So, if he has a different opinion of the voracity of events depicted in the Old Testament than you do, that makes him the adversary of all religious devotees who believe in God.
Anybody got a rope? Time to string him up! (light-hearted sarcasm) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 4:50:44 PM | @Optimistic Alyssa
Knowing something and believing it are very different things. They are basic principles of life. People are also divergent, you think because you lived with someone all your life you might know them, but believing their honesty can hit you like a train when it turns out they've lied. How gullible we are! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 5:46:11 PM | | What do you believe in? And yes we all have oppinions. But Evolutionists think their oppinions are better than other people's oppinions. Are you better than I am and your oppinion is the utimate truth? You think you know stuff but other people do not know anything? How about scientific facts like chirality and 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics for example. I already mentioned that many scientists were religious people as well: Pascal, Leibnitz, Kepler, Dalton, Cuvier | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 5:59:23 PM | With regards to this debate.
I personally believe in Creation and there really are many many reasons for that. If one is realistic and sees with ones own heart and uses true common sense one would know that there is no way that things "just happened"
To believe in the "Big Bang" theory ,It is like believing that a whole library of books came into being from a printer explosion-I DON'T THINK SO!!!
It takes ALOT more faith to believe in evolution then to believe in the fact that there was a Creator behind all this, one person said.
One person said also that to not believe that a Creator was behind everything that was made, is to "commit intellectual suicide" in his words.
The point is that when one sees the World and the Universe i honeslty don't see how one can not see the design and the creation behind this, The presition is so exact and everthing is as it is and their is order because there must be a Creator behind all this.
For someone to say that one day there was a "single cell thing" and then that one cell said to itself "lets be two" and then became two and etc , I mean that is just not reasonable and not Biblical.
I think one needs to be honest with oneself and see things for how they are and understand that it didn't all just happen, but indeed there was intelligent design by God Almighty.
Something to think about. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/29/2005 6:06:06 PM | | There was a problem with my computer when I tried to update my post. Were those scientists who believed in God also gullible? Those scientists: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay, Mendel, Pasteur, Paskal, Kepler. They believed that Bible is true. Do you call them gullible as well? | |
|
|
| Page 16 of 156
|
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 |
|
Home
login 
