[__ Science __ ] Carbon comes from ???????

W

Who Me

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
3,852
Reaction score
2,062
Science is truely amazing in what it explains and how it supports the bible.

Life, the 'carbon based life forms' that we are did not just happen.
The universe is far to complecated for thefantasy tales that evolution has to resort to to actualy happen.

The delicate fine tuning of the universe demonstrates to those who are willing to see that the universe is plannbed and was created.

read:-
winteryknight.com

The production of carbon from lighter elements is fine-tuned to an amazing degree

If there is one thing that science fiction is good for, it’s for popularizing the phrase “carbon-based life”. Everyone has heard that carbon is essential for life. But do you know…
winteryknight.com winteryknight.com

For an account of how complex making carbon is.
 
Who Me said:
The delicate fine tuning of the universe demonstrates to those who are willing to see that the universe is planned and was created.
Click to expand...
You could have added at the end "with mathematical precision" and you would have been right. The existence of fractals in nature proves that there was very careful mathematical planning in every aspect of the universe. The molecular structure of DNA is quite amazing in its precision also. And carbon is absolutely essential.

8577
 
Nathan12 said:
You could have added at the end "with mathematical precision" and you would have been right. The existence of fractals in nature proves that there was very careful mathematical planning in every aspect of the universe. The molecular structure of DNA is quite amazing in its precision also. And carbon is absolutely essential.

View attachment 8577
Click to expand...

And dna and rna the code and the means of reading it demonstates that life could not have arisen by chance.

Worse the seti shows that scientists cannot identify a designed code when its under their noses.
 
Carbon is merely a by-product of a sufficiently large star. One of the reasons we know that our solar system was initiated by the shockwave of a supernova is the presence of carbon and heavier elements.
 
Who Me said:
Science is truely amazing in what it explains and how it supports the bible.

Life, the 'carbon based life forms' that we are did not just happen.
The universe is far to complecated for thefantasy tales that evolution has to resort to to actualy happen.

The delicate fine tuning of the universe demonstrates to those who are willing to see that the universe is plannbed and was created.

For an account of how complex making carbon is.
Click to expand...

The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) says that the universe looks the way it does because if it looked differently, no life would be around to look.

The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) says that the universe looks the way it does because we are here.

The Strong Anthropic Principle is often called the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.
 
Barbarian said:
Weak Anthropic Principle
Click to expand...
"All possible observed universes are universes inhabited by observers, and so all possible observed universes are universes that permit life. There is therefore no need, the criticism concludes, to explain the fact that the universe is observed to be such as to permit life; it couldn‘t have been observed to be any other way."

It does not begin to explain why the universe exists or why there is life.
 
[QUOTE="Who Me, post: 1516760, member: 14106"
It does not begin to explain why the universe exists or why there is life.
[/QUOTE]

Darwin thought:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878
 
"As Voyager 1 reached the edge of our solar system in 1990, astronomer Carl Sagan asked NASA to instruct Voyager to turn around and take a picture looking back towards Earth. The grainy image showed our home as a tiny pale blue dot. In a book written soon after, atheist Sagan wrote,
“our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.”1
Click to expand...
Having reduced our significance to near nothingness, Sagan then tried to offer something positive:
“There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”"
Click to expand...

Darwin did not believe in God, his quote from the origin of species is an attempt to get the gulible to accept his ideas.

As carl sagan demonstrates it is folly to believe we are special or that we should care what happens to others.

His attempt to offer a reason to care shows the folly of believing in nothing, in evolution and atheism.

For me I accept that God creayed a perfect wprld, that man rejected God and his ways, but that God loves his creation and offers salvation.
 
Who Me said:
Darwin did not believe in God,
Click to expand...

He was so orthodox an Anglican that he was the butt of jokes about it, from the officers of the Beagle. Late in life, he remarked that he was tending to agnosticism after a beloved child died young.

However, he was a devout Anglican when he wrote his book.

his quote from the origin of species is an attempt to get the gulible to accept his ideas.
Click to expand...

If you think so, you know nothing at all of Charles Darwin; his honesty was noted by many of his fellows, even those who did not always agree with him.
 
Barbarian said:
[QUOTE="Who Me, post: 1516760, member: 14106"
It does not begin to explain why the universe exists or why there is life.
Click to expand...

Darwin thought:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878
[/QUOTE]

...and he was wrong about every bit of it.
 
Barbarian said:
He was so orthodox an Anglican that he was the butt of jokes about it, from the officers of the Beagle. Late in life, he remarked that he was tending to agnosticism after a beloved child died young.

However, he was a devout Anglican when he wrote his book.



If you think so, you know nothing at all of Charles Darwin; his honesty was noted by many of his fellows, even those who did not always agree with him.
Click to expand...

We are talking about how Christians understand Creation.
What a devout anglican does or does not believe has nothing to do with Christianity.
A Darwin himself said,"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox . . . But I had come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world . . . was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."
;Nora Barlow, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809–1882 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1958), p. 71.

That is not a quote a Christian will make.
 
Who Me said:
We are talking about how Christians understand Creation.
What a devout anglican does or does not believe has nothing to do with Christianity.
Click to expand...

Can't get much more orthodox than an Anglican.

A Darwin himself said,"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox . . .
Click to expand...

Yes, when he did his research, and wrote his book, he was very orthodox. Only later, after his daughter died, did he become an agnostic. Which is when he wrote:

But I had come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world . . .
Click to expand...

Here, late in life, accepts the false idea that Genesis is a literal history. That was known to be false from the beginning of our faith.
 
Barbarian said:
That was known to be false from the beginning of our faith.
Click to expand...
This is simple not true:-Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th,4 Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation5 —after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve.”
taken from https://creation.com/benno-zuiddam-interview-church-history
 
Who Me said:
This is simple not true
Click to expand...

It's very true. Augustine pointed out that Genesis could not be a literal history, since that re-interpretation would have mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation5 —after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve.”
Click to expand...

This is all consistent with scripture which presents Genesis as a figurative account. You can have such accounts about real people and real events. Aquinas did not argue for a literal six days.

We will see here that Thomas has carefully studied older opinions about Genesis 1, but does not choose one over another. Instead he shows where they agree and they disagree, what must be ruled out, and why we can accept differences of opinion where we in fact can. In his own reading of Genesis 1, Aquinas distinguishes three phases within the six days of creation, but he does not discuss whether the days are twenty-four hour periods or are rather symbols of different orders of creatures.

Like the Fathers of the Church, Thomas observes the important metaphysical distinction between creation and change. Creation is the act of making things exist where before nothing existed. In contrast, forming a new interesting thing out of preexisting basic elements is an impressive change, but it is not creation properly speaking. Coincidentally for evolution, the word Thomas uses for “change” is mutatio: He repeatedly reminds his readers that creatio non est mutatio—that is, creation is not change, alteration, development, or mutation.1

Aquinas clarifies that the act of creation requires omnipotence, so there are no intermediate actors in creation.2 Also, as Thomas points out, the act of creation itself is indivisible, i.e. it does not take any time. God instantaneously and effortlessly wills the universe to exist—and so it did and does.3

Regarding the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, Aquinas manifests a detailed knowledge of the Fathers’ diverse opinions (e.g. whether the firmament is the heavens, whether the empyrean heaven is the starry heavens; how water, land, air, and vapors develop, etc.4 ), and he appreciates the insights of them all. In his earliest theological synthesis, the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Thomas notes that the view that the world developed over six ordinary days “is the more common position and seems more consonant with the letter [of the text] on a superficial level.”5 But he judges that St. Augustine’s understanding of the six days as signifying different orders of creatures but not different periods in time “is more rational and better defends sacred Scripture against the mockery of unbelievers.” Aquinas says that he “likes this [latter] opinion more” but that “nevertheless all of the arguments can be answered in holding either opinion.”6

Interpreting Genesis 1 with St. Thomas Aquinas | Thomistic Evolution

www.thomisticevolution.org www.thomisticevolution.org

I was in graduate school with a man who had been in a Catholic seminary, and had been heavily influenced by Thomist philosophy, and he acknowleged the figurative nature of the creation "days" as St. Augustine did.

I am not completely a Thomist myself, but I am greatly influenced by St. Tom's sharp mind and rigorous logic.

And it has never been Christian orthodoxy that God cursed other animals as He cursed man.

The world remains good; we are what's wrong with the world.
 
Man is not in the Garden of Eden anymore.

“So I will put a curse on the ground,
and you will have to work very hard for your food.
In pain you will eat its food
all the days of your life.
The ground will produce thorns and weeds for you, Genesis 3:17b-18a NCV
 
The nephish animals were created as companions for man, in the garden. Their systems would be optimized for that environment, tended to by man. Studies indicate that about 80% of mammals do better cared for by man in zoos rather than in the wild. Dogs and cats cared for by people in their homes tend to last far longer than dogs and cats in the wild. The exceptions tend to be animals like whales, which are hard to imagine as something intelligently designed to be tended to by man.
 
Last edited:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26-28 KJV
 
Michael74 said:
The nephish animals were created as companions for man, in the garden. Their systems would be optimized for that environment, tended to by man. Studies indicate that about 80% of mammals do better cared for by man in zoos rather than in the wild.
Click to expand...

Free of starvation, predation, etc. Not surprising. But it means nothing at all. God did not curse animals for man's stubbornness. In fact, the curse meant that man would start to domesticate animals. Exactly the opposite.
 
Barbarian said:
God did not curse animals for man's stubbornness.
Click to expand...

Oh right, we were holding parallel conversations. You were trying to prove the absence of a direct curse on animals. I was not trying to prove that there was a curse on animals. I was simply making the point that nephesh animals were intelligently designed to be companions for man. What happens to man indirectly affects the nephesh animals, our intended companions.

Puppy dogs are by design supposed to be walking loyally by the side of a man, not wandering around alone in the wilderness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Focus on the Family
How Science Can Strengthen Your Teen’s Faith
Replies
0
Views
352
Focus on the Family
Focus on the Family
WalterandDebbie
Bible Study Exploring The Stars
Replies
1
Views
254
journeymanisnothing
J
Ben Avraham
Joseph, from slave to governor, following God's perfect plan (Gen 37-40)
Replies
1
Views
226
Ben Avraham
Ben Avraham
Focus on the Family
How to Raise Strong and Confident Daughters
Replies
0
Views
210
Focus on the Family
Focus on the Family
M
Bible Study Genetic Modifications- cherubs
Replies
6
Views
522
for_his_glory
for_his_glory
Back
Top