An Orthopedic Surgeon Explains Her Faith In Creation

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Dr. Irene Hof Laurenceau practices orthopedic surgery in Switzerland. At one time she doubted God’s existence.
But some years later she came to the conclusion that God exists and that he is the Creator of life.

Here is excerpts from her interview:


Did your medical research help you to reason on the origin of life ?

Yes. When I started studying the Bible, I was researching knee surgery. Beginning in the late 1960’s, scientists began to understand the knee’s intricate mechanism more clearly. They found that our knee does
not only bend on a single axis like a hinge. Rather, it both rolls and glides—an ingenious combination that gives the knee a greater range of movement, enabling us to walk, dance, skate, and do a host of other things.
For some 40 years, researchers
have tried to design an artificial
knee. But the complexity
of the human knee makes it
difficult to duplicate. Moreover,
compared with our knee, artificial
products have a relatively
short life span. Even with improved
materials at their disposal,
those designers are
pleased if their products last
20 years. Our knee, of course,
is made of living cells that are
constantly renewed. To me,
the knee testifies, not to the
blind processes of evolution,
but to the wisdom of God.



What about mutations and the similarity in anatomy between certain species?

That similarity points to the
same Designer. Moreover, mutations
do not improve the designs
in living organisms by elevating
them to a higher
kind. Rather, mutations tend
to damage genes. Of course, it
is possible that an accident
can serve a beneficial purpose—
such as when, say, a
train crashes into a bridge and
wrecks it, thus protecting the
city from an invading army. But
that accident did not improve
the city. Likewise, mutations
do not improve organisms.
And they could never produce
something so brilliantly designed
as the human knee
—not to mention other parts of
the human body.


This former intelligent agnostic has considered the science and come to a different conclusion than others that say science supports mutant evolution.




posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
No source? I would like to know more about her decision. I'm skeptical because her story is similar to other stories as to why people chose to believe in creationism. Emotion and that certain parts of the body are "complex." Therefore there is a creator.

Also, she doesn't seem to understand mutations and genetics. Mutation enables new genes for an organism to evolve. Which is natural selection. Dr. Irene Hof Laurenceau emotion about her faith overlooks science and observable facts.

Link



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


Yes and isn't interesting that the fruit fly despite all it's mutations is still a fruit fly. And it doesn't evolve or change beyond it's core design. The mutant either dies out or it's DNA helps it revert back to it's original form if it can even propagate.
Actually from my perspective the fruit fly is an example that actually proves major mutations will not change creatures over the long term. It actually defeats evolution. The core DNA/RNA always wins out in the end to bring it back to basically where it started.
edit on 5-8-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Well, I would like to see proof of this experiment. Because evolution has been observed and tested numerous times. Which is why it is consider a scientific theory. Also I would like for you to post sources. Today my family and I having hard times. Which is causing me headaches. So I'm doing my best to look for sources to debate with.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Makes no bones about it, does she?

Well, if an orthopaedic surgeon believes it, it must be true.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
What would be really ingenuous would be a knee that stays in perfect working order for the life of the person. Or a body that never gets a single disease, cancer, or weakens with age.

The ultimate ingenuous idea would be a perfect working specimen, with no faults ever, with a set life span of say 90 years. When that 90 yrs was up, the person just gets 'turned off'. That way everyone can prepare for death and there won't be any deaths due to disease, cancer or whatever. If I were perfect--creating a perfect specimen, that's how I'd create it.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
A Swedish Jehova's Witness (that also happens to be a doctor) that doesn't know the difference between abiogenisis and evolution, says she can't think of a better explanation for the origins of life other than 'God dun it'.......how is this in any way noteworthy?

Seems fairly typical to me, most creationists make the same mistakes.
edit on 6-8-2013 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Speaking from someone who has grown up with a doctor for a father I can absolutely tell you that I would take a doctors word about evolution and the bible about as quickly as I would take the word of an actor/actress on politics. Just because a doctor says it must be divine work does not make it so....doctors are notorious for being very book smart and singular minded with no common sense nor outside the box thinking....not all mind you....just the majority.

So if evolution is not the answer then why are those that are indigenous to warmer/sunnier climates darker skinned? I would also like to have the good doctor explain these:

Peppered Moth




The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by virraszto
 


This. I blew out my ACL when I was in the military, because of that I tended to favor my other leg while the injured one was recovering. Now I can feel that both my knees are going downhill. I'm still young so it hasn't impeded me too much, but it's only a matter of time. Not to mention my shoulders are deteriorating due to too many pushups. I can feel the bones grinding as the cartilage is worn down over time. I'm 28 and I already know that I'm destined for some intense arthritis.

Also, why is something as natural as running so damaging to someone's knees? You'd think if we had an intelligent creator, He'd streamline the joint process to rebuild itself better after doing years of strenuous workloads on your joints. If there was a creator, then he just created everything and let the rules of the universe do the rest. He obviously has little to do with any development post creation of the universe.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 



the difference between abiogenisis and evolution


Again I will say this, when it come to conceptual belief systems there is no difference, this is a package deal, for most, sure some here at ATS have split them up, but the general population never has. For those that believe either in creation or the no influence millions of years development of life.
Those that support the idea's of those have just made it scientifically easier to defend the philosophy by creating a secondary category, so they don't have to deal with it, because they were finding it too hard. To bad it is the foundation which evolution builds it's house of cards on.
edit on 6-8-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Prezbo369
 



the difference between abiogenisis and evolution


Again I will say this, when it come to conceptual belief systems there is no difference, this is a package deal, for most, sure some here at ATS have split them up, but the general population never has. For those that believe either in creation or the no influence millions of years development of life.
Those that support the idea's of those have just made it scientifically easier to defend the philosophy by creating a secondary category, so they don't have to deal with it, because they were finding it too hard. To bad it is the foundation which evolution builds it's house of cards on.
edit on 6-8-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


One describes the origins of life

The other describes the diversity of life

How life sprang into existence and how it has adapted and changed are two very different areas of biology, and they are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that those who are predisposed to reject evolution and abiogenisis on superstitious grounds have decided to meld the two together is of no consequence.


edit on 6-8-2013 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 



You do understand that to the believer of creation:

-Cosmology origins theory
-Abiogenesis origins theory
-Evolution Theory

And any other category in this area you want to add, are a complete package deal. Yes they are different area's of science, and that is all good, but to those us that believe in creation by God they are inextricably linked.
Try all you want you can never break them apart for us. So your definitions are also irrelevant to me as well.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


With such an intelligent designer, one would think there would be no need for orthopaedic surgery.











edit on 6-8-2013 by UmbraSumus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Complexity is something evolution should lead to. An intelligent designer may be interested in keeping things from being unnecessarily complex. Evolution is only interested in whether the design works better or worse. So the creationist argument from complexity is a faulty one from the beginning and if anything complexity points towards evolutionary explanation, certainly does not disprove it.
edit on 6/8/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
3.7 billion years of evolution vs. 40 years of research, and she doesn't even understand fundamental aspects of evolution like mutation (random) and selection (not random).. yeah



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Prezbo369
 



You do understand that to the believer of creation:

-Cosmology origins theory
-Abiogenesis origins theory
-Evolution Theory

And any other category in this area you want to add, are a complete package deal. Yes they are different area's of science, and that is all good, but to those us that believe in creation by God they are inextricably linked.
Try all you want you can never break them apart for us. So your definitions are also irrelevant to me as well.


You're right I guess, whenever dealing with fantasy you're allowed to make whatever definitions you want.

But for us living in the real world, those definitions exist for a reason.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
3.7 billion years of evolution vs. 40 years of research, and she doesn't even understand fundamental aspects of evolution like mutation (random) and selection (not random).. yeah


and since when did you know that the earth and all the things in it evolved?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Just because she is humble enough to admit she doesn't know, doesn't mean that any of you know the knee better than her. You're all just too proud to admit there is something you do not know. I would say the fact that she had the humility to admit something this, shows there is more to her than her career choice. It means something changed the heart of her to acknowledge God. You might all think she is just an emotional charged idiot for this, but again, I doubt any of you )or all of you combined even) have her knowledge of the subject.

Moreso, you all want proof, likewise, I want proof. All you have for us is something small in an insect, and ambiguous terms like abiogenesis which nobody in here if asked would be able to define it the same way if all were asked. Her 40 something years of research might mean nothing in the grand scheme of things, but so does your however many years of research, it gets you no further than she did. You dont have to say God designed it, you could say the flying spaghetti monster made it, evolution didn't just happen on its own. If macro evolution really happened, it had to start somewhere, and from there it had to start somewhere and so on. How you logical and rational and super intelligent people dont see this fundamental folly is insane to me.

Also the reason the knee and the human body in general is not "perfect" is that during the fall of man in the garden of eden, we became mortal and lost our perfection. Some of you fling scientific terms back and forth at us like were too stupid to understand, well you sound stupid yourself some times, read the Bible.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
and since when did you know that the earth and all the things in it evolved?

That's what all the evidence is telling us. There's nothing objective that points to something else.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
and since when did you know that the earth and all the things in it evolved?

That's what all the evidence is telling us. There's nothing objective that points to something else.


You mean conjecture, theory, guess, assumption of how life coulda have been 3.7 BYA?

Is this the evidence you're talking about?

How is this evidence?

Yet when the evidence points to an Intelligent Designer many refuse to see and understand it because it invalidates a pre-supposed idea.

Sad indeed.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join