Jump to content

teenquestionss

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

16 Neutral

1 Follower

About teenquestionss

  • Birthday 05/31/1996

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    OK

Recent Profile Visitors

733 profile views
  1. I agree with everything you said. Now I realize how bad my writing is lol. Your corrections make a lot of sense. How old are you now? I feel stupid..
  2. I totally agree with you. There are so many fallacies with this field of science that couldn't even be explained in a book. You're right, it's not a theory, and is not even a justified hypothesis, although it is technically. This writing serves only to sprout curiosity for an unbeliever or to strengthen faith; it is not proof. That would be ridiculous. My point is, atheists really need to research what they are investing their lives in, which in my opinion is not the case a lot of the time. Sure, "ignorance is bliss" when it condones sin without repercussions, but what is a life to eternity...? What is sin to holiness? It appears humans' pursuit to achieve "God" knowledge in this age is a comparable to the Tower of Babel story - an indication of the End Times. The self-ascension of man will not persist for much longer.
  3. For science lovers out there, here's my essay over a controversial topic I chose to write for my senior English class. I apologize for the formatting and the bold text; this forum had problem taking the original. I've covered some compelling points that discredit the humanistic creationism. Let me know what you think. I attempted to write it in a passive tone that would not scare away unbelievers. Just to let you know, I am Christian. "Professing Themselves to be Wise, They Became Fools": Flaws in Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories The most pressing and controversial topic of all are the questions concerning where we came from and how we got here. One side insists that we came from a being or deity, while another advocates evolution and the Big Bang theory. Throughout history we have assigned various deities to our existence; however, it wasn’t until roughly two centuries ago that it was even questioned. Many scientists claim that the belief of a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence. Although, there are many problems with the second argument, including: corruption of the publicized scientific community, the inability to explain the fundamental living blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories of modern science, and finally, the complexity of biological systems that science is unable to explain. First of all, it must be made clear that the modern scientific community is corrupt. Donald Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter. More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.” He points out astrophysics is not “science” because it is unable to collect empirical data: the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical world, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by the scientists in charge. Since they cannot test their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists. Their diluted theories are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic”, which allow no refuting speculation to be made known to the people. This of course sets the standard for other magazines and online articles who endorse it as well. Therefore, it is naïve to definitively believe in the publicized scientific views because they are untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field with the same humanistic belief system. One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life. For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides. After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain (and is a large topic in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To help explain how inorganic molecules could be converted to organic naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes. He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were believed to be consistent with early earth’s environment. The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now suggested that the variables are not consistent with the modern-day model of early earth. Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and other needed chemicals reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet). At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed. No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day. This is just one example of how our knowledge of science has actually hurt preexisting evolutionary theories. It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on. What does this say about present day theories? What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today? Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw? It’s not likely. With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution. Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices! Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information. A rising explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.” It entails our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes. They reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance. They have discovered multiple physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover). For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross). In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unleashed yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).” This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-so this is old news as well. Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating: “Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.” It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started. As they discover more and more, they have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories. To hold such a theory, which is certainly immeasurable (because it is out of this universe), requires an equal amount of faith as theism because there is no way to build up on it, or even prove. Are we just supposed to blindly believe this? If they believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose? It’s doubtful this will be the final consensus, though it truly unmasks their uncertainty and their capability to pull their evidence from unobservable data. (Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today. Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.) If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken to you, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination. Charles Darwin is the father of and also the most notable figure in evolutionary science today, known for his book, The Origin of Species. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and well-known author, challenges Darwin’s writing, which states, “'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Darwin wrote his book in 1859, so he did not know all of these advances in science today (e.g. genes and DNA – fundamental aspects of his theory that would completely change his conclusions). Behe damages the authenticity of his book because he directly refutes his statement above by the concept of “Irreducible Complexity.” He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe). The significance of this concept is that evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years. No amount of time is sufficient for these systems to evolve because even if one starts to add on bits and pieces in order to perform a task, there are hundreds of other parts that are essential to keep it alive. In theory, even if an infinite number of these biological wonders started, they would die because they are always missing one leg on the stool. As of now, evolutionists cannot explain these phenomena. In fact, the essential building blocks that make up these complex processes are still an enigma, with the Miller-Urey experiment as just one example. It is crucial to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power. It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both. The scientists behind the theories are constantly seeking answers that we simply cannot understand. It is a faulty pursuit that insists that we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future. Unless you cangenuinely believe that all of the scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it. The possibility that a higher power created the universe, which accepts that we do not know all of the answers with our limited intellect, is the more rational alternative. Given this, the real question should ask where we came from, not how we got here. Works Cited Behe, Michael J. "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference: Behe, Michael." C.S. Lewis Society. Cambridge University, 1994. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Behe, Michael. “Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum.” Digital image. Evolution News, 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Davidson, Michael W. "Molecular Expressions Cell Biology: Animal Cell Structure - Cilia and Flagella." Cilia and Flagella. N.p., 13 Dec. 2004. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Lunz, Stephen. "Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened." IFLScience. 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Peet, John. "The Miller-Urey Experiment." Truth in Science, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Ross, Hugh. Dr. Bang Refined by Fire. Pasadena: NavPress, 1998. Print. Scientist. "10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked." Famous Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning.” ScienceDaily. N.p., 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Scott, Donald E. The Electric Sky Book. Introduction. Mikamor Publishing. Portland: Mikamor, 2006. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Wolchover, Natalie. "New Physics Complications Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis." Quanta Magazine, 1 June 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
×
×
  • Create New...