THE END
i feel like i duno anytin..can u believe dis is true..i checked wikipedia myself unbelievingly..poor male anglers:P
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
A Case for a CREATOR by Lee Strobel
d book m currently reading, been wanting to borrow a christian book from a library but never had d chance^.^ d chapter dat really struck me though was d one i jus read entitled: Exploring Evolution: A New Look at Old Ideas (background: d writer was an atheist for d longest time since high school n he discussed scientific facts which pushed him into his belief n a review about wat current scientific findings has to say bout it)
Image 1: The Miller Experiment (read more HERE)
More recent study has shown dat "early earths atmosphere didnt contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced." Thus disproving this theory.
Image 2: Darwin's tree of life (BOOya)
"Darwin's theory basically predicted a long history of GRADUAL change, with differences slowly becoming bigger and bigger until you get the major differences you have now. But fossil records, even in Darwin's day, showed the opposite. Instead of slowly developing, major groups of animals appeared SUDDENLY in the fossil record in what's called the Cambrian explosion" which basically means a whole lot of phyla (highest category in animal kingdom eg. worms, etc) started appearing without any of the ancestors required by Darwinism during a brief period of time in the evolutionary calender.
Image 3: Haeckel's Embryos (EEEEE)
Basically its a picture depicting the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit n a human side by side at 3 stages of development of which haeckel theorized that as they are similar, we must all have a common ancestor. As early as 1860s however, the pictures were proven to be basically FAKED as Haeckel did not actually compare the different stages but assumed them to be similar..the actual comparison can be seen HERE
on a separate note, Tim Berra had tried to illustrate a similar point by comparing fossil record to a series of automobile models saying that "if u compare a 1953 and a 1954 corvette side by side n den a 1954 and 1955 corvette n so on, it becomes obvious that dere has been descent with modification or a form of evolution". "by doing so, berra had actually demonstrated that a series of similar forms doesn't necesarily point to natural evolution but due to a designers intention of creating n modifying their structures since none of those corvettes had evolved on their own through natural effects of wind, rain n rust"
the writer finally ended the chapter by posing a question to his scientist friend: where do u believe d evidence of science if pointing?to which he answered to me, as a scientist the development of an embryo cries out, DESIGN! similarities across species, the cambrian explosion is more consistent with design than evolution. none of these things make as much sense from an evolution perspective as they do from a design perspective..
but the lines that struck me the most really are these:
there are 2types of explanations: scientific-describing how preexisting conditions n natural laws cause something OR personal-describing how an agent or that agent's will causes something
for example: imagine u walked into a kitchen n saw the kettle boiling on the stove, u ask WHY IS THE KETTLE BOILING???
your mom might say, well because the kinetic energy of the flame is conducted by the metal bottom of the kettle to the water, causing the water molecules to vibrate faster and faster until they're thrown off in the form of steam. (scientific)
OR
your mom might say, i put it on to make a cup of tea. (personal)
>>both explanations are legitimate but explain the event in different ways. the writer realised that there can't be a scientific explanation of the 1st state of the universe because ITS THE FIRST STATE, it cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to it. so if there is to be an explanation of the 1st state of the universe, it has to be a personal one-that is an agent who has the will to create it?
Image 1: The Miller Experiment (read more HERE)
More recent study has shown dat "early earths atmosphere didnt contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced." Thus disproving this theory.
Image 2: Darwin's tree of life (BOOya)
Image 3: Haeckel's Embryos (EEEEE)
on a separate note, Tim Berra had tried to illustrate a similar point by comparing fossil record to a series of automobile models saying that "if u compare a 1953 and a 1954 corvette side by side n den a 1954 and 1955 corvette n so on, it becomes obvious that dere has been descent with modification or a form of evolution". "by doing so, berra had actually demonstrated that a series of similar forms doesn't necesarily point to natural evolution but due to a designers intention of creating n modifying their structures since none of those corvettes had evolved on their own through natural effects of wind, rain n rust"
the writer finally ended the chapter by posing a question to his scientist friend: where do u believe d evidence of science if pointing?to which he answered to me, as a scientist the development of an embryo cries out, DESIGN! similarities across species, the cambrian explosion is more consistent with design than evolution. none of these things make as much sense from an evolution perspective as they do from a design perspective..
but the lines that struck me the most really are these:
there are 2types of explanations: scientific-describing how preexisting conditions n natural laws cause something OR personal-describing how an agent or that agent's will causes something
for example: imagine u walked into a kitchen n saw the kettle boiling on the stove, u ask WHY IS THE KETTLE BOILING???
your mom might say, well because the kinetic energy of the flame is conducted by the metal bottom of the kettle to the water, causing the water molecules to vibrate faster and faster until they're thrown off in the form of steam. (scientific)
OR
your mom might say, i put it on to make a cup of tea. (personal)
mind blowing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)