A Microbiologist Explains Her Conversion From Evolution To Creation.

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Sometimes those in the sciences as they study there field come to realize through there examination of science that life is just to complex to be random, this is one example.

Here is one Microbiologists thought conversion process as she states it.


In the late 1990’s, molecular biologists were beginning to realize that the chemistry of life is much more elaborate than anyone had previously thought. Of course, scientists had long known that the proteins in living cells are the most chemically sophisticated molecules in existence. But now, they were discovering how whole assemblies of proteins are organized to form elegant machines with moving parts. A molecular machine might be composed of over 50 proteins. And even the simplest cell needs a collection of different machines—for example, to generate power, to duplicate information, and to control access across membranes.

Well, I asked myself, ‘How did those protein machines become so well engineered?’ At the time, the unexpected complexity of cell chemistry made a number of scientists ask the same question. A professor of biochemistry in the United States published a book arguing that the molecular machines in living cells are so complex that they could not have originated randomly. I agreed. I felt that life must have been created.


www.jw.org...

I like these examples as it shows people that were embedded in the evolution theory, through science come to a different conclusion, and it can't be argued that they are ignorant of science and that's why they believe in creation.

Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.
edit on 10/29/2013 by kosmicjack because: added source link




posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


This is just another example of the thought process, "I don't understand and am overwhelmed by awe of nature, therefore, "God".

But who designed and created God?



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Our cells' little machines, and the vast city that they create - a city that divides itself in half and makes an exact copy of everything!!!! - is one of my favorite animal-kingdom topics. And, of course, hail the mitochondria, our friends for life (literal BFF's)!



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Sounds like my husband, also a microbiologist.

He thinks that continuing to dogmatically with evolution is doing science a disservice, not so much because he thinks there needs to be a shift toward creationism or anything like that but because he believes the dogmatic defense of it is stifling scientific inquiry.

Physics went from Newtonian to Einstein to Quantum. Each was a shift in the fundamental understanding and allowed for huge new leaps forward.

So why must our understanding of biology be forever stuck with Darwin maybe our deeper understanding would allow us make that next leap forward if scientists could question Darwin.

But then, maybe it was easier for Physics being based primarily on math like it is. Numbers are much harder to argue with.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Maybe more people will begin to believe in the real process behind us now, science didn't back up evolution? Yeah all of us creationists already knew this, I am glad someone from a science backround sees it now! God is real, you don't need a church or a bible or anything to know the truth....



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Blue_Jay33
I like these examples as it shows people that were embedded in the evolution theory, through science come to a different conclusion, and it can't be argued that they are ignorant of science and that's why they believe in creation.


Again 'random' factor in process that is everything but not random?!

How many times we will move back to the same basic misunderstanding of evolution. There is no random what species/organism will survive and evolve.

And as for your quote, origin link would be helpful, as your quote has no name behind it or anything else for further research.

Whole story is fishy at its best.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Your post is conveniently missing a source. You should rectify that, as some of us want to delve deeper into this mystery.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



This is just another example of the thought process, "I don't understand and am overwhelmed by awe of nature, therefore, "God".

But who designed and created God?


No one will answer that question for you, even though refusing to answer that question is basically taking a crap on the reason they brought God into the equation to begin with. The universe had to come from somewhere, because something so great and marvelous doesn't just spontaneously happen, but God is somehow excepted from that rule in the same breath.

Whoo! It's getting deep in here. I forgot to bring my boots. I'll be back...
edit on 29-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


... source?



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Never mind reference to your quote.... another Jehovah witness propaganda article... very questionable at its best....

www.jw.org...

@ketsuko - in science is kind of hard to make up stuff... for that we have religion. Unless your husband finds something else and proves it correct, kind of hard to remove something that so far has been proven correct, don't you agree??



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Look, if someone ever comes up with a valid alternate to evolution to explain this kind of stuff then id be all for it. There are a lot of questions that evolution doesn't really answer, but right now its the best we have.

When science comes forward with evidence that either disagrees with evolution, or points in a different direction, then we can focus there and better figure out whats going on.

Until that day evolution is the best option we have. Making claims based off of anything other than evidence is wrong and does the scientific community, and society a disservice.

DC



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Ha...ha...HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, wow. Show of hands, who here is surprised?

Sweet. I'll just take this off my list of subscriptions. Thanks for the stand-up, Blue.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 





But who designed and created God?



That's obviously something you will have to ask him. But the fact that you can ask
a silly question that really has no bearing, by any means doesn't compare to this thought
process.

So there.
edit on 29-10-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Evolution and Creation don't have to be at odds.

Just because Evolution hasn't found evidence that we were engineered doesn't mean that we weren't.

And of course everyone knows. It was Aliens.


edit on 29-10-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

She does not contradict or deny evolution in any part of the quote from the OP. The function that creates is not the same as the function that evolves.
edit on 10/29/2013 by usertwelve because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 





I didn't read any part of that she contradicts or denies evolution.



To long for ya ? Why even comment?
edit on 29-10-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





That's obviously something you will have to ask him.


Assuming that he/it exists.


But the fact that you can ask
a silly question that really has no bearing, by any means doesn't compare to this thought
process.


No. It's a logical question. If, because we can't understand biological processes, we claim "God" must'v done it, then the logical question is "Who created God".

So there!


edit on 29-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Follow up with question who created god's creator...

But we are more likely to prove that evolution created God creator about 2-3K years ago...




posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

Did you?



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying it's not enough anymore.

For what Darwin saw in his day, OK.

But for what we see and know now? No. We need to expand. Imagine Einstein being constrained to shoehorn his theories into Newtonian physics because everyone would be terribly afraid that if he went further, tried to explain and understand more with his questions, it might go somewhere else other than comfortable old Newton.

I feel like there are so many who are so invested in Darwin as the anti-God that they cling to him with religious fervor. Understand that I don't believe that any scientific inquiries we make in this universe will ever do anything to either prove or disprove God. He is the author of that is and as such exists outside this universe we are defined by. The only way we will ever possibly scientifically come close is if we find a way to break beyond the bonds of this universe, IMO.

So for me, for us, tsting Darwin and looking for the next layer of our understanding in the process of life isn't about proving or disproving God, it's about a better understanding of the processes of how life and organisms work on the genetic level.
edit on 29-10-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join