Secretblend
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,821
- Reaction score
- 121
i am not talking about spirits..i am talking about dinosaurs and yall are getting off the topic.. you need to start a thread that talk about animal spirits..
Agreed!
What does the Bible say about dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Liebling:-)))
- Start date
- Status
Agreed!
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,213
- Reaction score
- 22
i am not talking about spirits..i am talking about dinosaurs and yall are getting off the topic.. you need to start a thread that talk about animal spirits..
Okay. Sorry.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3395(197606)62:3<366:VPIMP>2.0.CO;2-K
Interesting post about viral particcals found in Plasmodium parasite that causes Maleria. Personally since a virus is classified as a parasite, I think they ought to experiment with anti viral drugs on Malaria. I have a friend who was a missionary to Africa many years back. I suggested he treat his malarial relapses with natropathic anti viral methods. (specifically L-lysine, an amino acid found to be anti viral) He got better and hasn't had a relaps in 5 years. Not scientific certainly, but noteworty. And from my own research I believe most parasitic infections are just vetors for a virus or bacteria that causes the real illness. BUT thats a whole nother thead!
Interesting post about viral particcals found in Plasmodium parasite that causes Maleria. Personally since a virus is classified as a parasite, I think they ought to experiment with anti viral drugs on Malaria. I have a friend who was a missionary to Africa many years back. I suggested he treat his malarial relapses with natropathic anti viral methods. (specifically L-lysine, an amino acid found to be anti viral) He got better and hasn't had a relaps in 5 years. Not scientific certainly, but noteworty. And from my own research I believe most parasitic infections are just vetors for a virus or bacteria that causes the real illness. BUT thats a whole nother thead!
I'm going to post this here because I don't know where else to post it. If anyone thinks I should have posted this somewhere else, please let me know. Sooo...sorry if you guys think this is getting too off topic.
Fredfam,
Looked at your article. Indeed it was interesting. However, a few points deserve mention here. Firstly, the experiments were conducted with Plasmodium berghei, Plasmodium gallinaceum, and Plasmodium cynomolgi bastianelli which are not commonly implicated in either malarial infection or death in humans. Interestingly, these parasites are commonly used in experiments on rodents. Secondly, these were virus-like particles and were not definitively proven to be viruses although the assays performed do suggest a viral infection of the parasite. Indeed, to quote the authors of the paper “It is not unreasonable to suppose that the oocyst capsule constitutes a physical barrier to these particles throughout the majority of sporogony and effectively contains them.” The authors repeatedly refer to the intracellular nature of these particles, impyling that the “virus” is held inside the parasite. Thirdly the authors state at the end of the paper that these particles have only been found in the Sporogonic aspect of their life cycle (inside the mosquito). Although this does not preclude their presence in the Exo-erythrocytic or Erythrocytic (both in mammals) parts of the lifecycle, it had not been proven as of the date of this articles publishing in June 1976.
Now, I thought maybe some progress had been made on this subject in the last 32 years and performed a medline search for the terms: malaria (limited to Microbiology, Parasitology, Pathology, Therapy, Transmission, Etiology) and viruses (limited to Isolation & Purification, Pathogenicity, Genetics, Ultrastructure). Unfortunately, there seems to be no link that I could identify in the 30 results that came up (dating from 1996 to May 2007) that suggested malaria might be due to a virus. If you can find a more recent paper, or even one using the parasites that commonly infect humans, please let me know because I would love to read it.
Regarding your thinking that anti-viral medications should be tried on Malaria; my search did find some papers that seem to suggest that a potential therapeutic route that is emerging is the use of various viruses, coated with antigens from the Plasmodium falciparum parasite can be used to activate the immune system. Your body kills the virus, but learns to recognize the antigens. This in turn becomes a sort of immunity that could potentially prevent the actual infection by the parasite (if it is recognized and killed before it can infiltrate red blood cells and). However, no word is out there that this is in anything more than a research-based setting. If you would like some more information I can provide it. Also, do you think you could provide a research article that implicates lysine as an effective anti-viral therapy? I’m quite genuinely interested to see how that works.
Finally, how does this relate to dinosaurs and the bible? 1) dinosaurs probably got viruses just like people, cows, plants, dogs, fishes, bacteria, and anything else that’s alive gets viruses. Secondly – the bible makes no mention of viruses…. Hmmmmm.
Fredfam,
Looked at your article. Indeed it was interesting. However, a few points deserve mention here. Firstly, the experiments were conducted with Plasmodium berghei, Plasmodium gallinaceum, and Plasmodium cynomolgi bastianelli which are not commonly implicated in either malarial infection or death in humans. Interestingly, these parasites are commonly used in experiments on rodents. Secondly, these were virus-like particles and were not definitively proven to be viruses although the assays performed do suggest a viral infection of the parasite. Indeed, to quote the authors of the paper “It is not unreasonable to suppose that the oocyst capsule constitutes a physical barrier to these particles throughout the majority of sporogony and effectively contains them.” The authors repeatedly refer to the intracellular nature of these particles, impyling that the “virus” is held inside the parasite. Thirdly the authors state at the end of the paper that these particles have only been found in the Sporogonic aspect of their life cycle (inside the mosquito). Although this does not preclude their presence in the Exo-erythrocytic or Erythrocytic (both in mammals) parts of the lifecycle, it had not been proven as of the date of this articles publishing in June 1976.
Now, I thought maybe some progress had been made on this subject in the last 32 years and performed a medline search for the terms: malaria (limited to Microbiology, Parasitology, Pathology, Therapy, Transmission, Etiology) and viruses (limited to Isolation & Purification, Pathogenicity, Genetics, Ultrastructure). Unfortunately, there seems to be no link that I could identify in the 30 results that came up (dating from 1996 to May 2007) that suggested malaria might be due to a virus. If you can find a more recent paper, or even one using the parasites that commonly infect humans, please let me know because I would love to read it.
Regarding your thinking that anti-viral medications should be tried on Malaria; my search did find some papers that seem to suggest that a potential therapeutic route that is emerging is the use of various viruses, coated with antigens from the Plasmodium falciparum parasite can be used to activate the immune system. Your body kills the virus, but learns to recognize the antigens. This in turn becomes a sort of immunity that could potentially prevent the actual infection by the parasite (if it is recognized and killed before it can infiltrate red blood cells and). However, no word is out there that this is in anything more than a research-based setting. If you would like some more information I can provide it. Also, do you think you could provide a research article that implicates lysine as an effective anti-viral therapy? I’m quite genuinely interested to see how that works.
Finally, how does this relate to dinosaurs and the bible? 1) dinosaurs probably got viruses just like people, cows, plants, dogs, fishes, bacteria, and anything else that’s alive gets viruses. Secondly – the bible makes no mention of viruses…. Hmmmmm.
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,879
- Reaction score
- 7
Thanks Liebling!
But I have to edit my grammar and slight re-write it first. My eassy & thoery are a bit of old, for that reason is I wrote it almost three years ago (I think?).
I will post it with them whenever I have a time.
Again, thanks for letting me to do it!
But I have to edit my grammar and slight re-write it first. My eassy & thoery are a bit of old, for that reason is I wrote it almost three years ago (I think?).
I will post it with them whenever I have a time.
Again, thanks for letting me to do it!
I'm going to post this here because I don't know where else to post it. If anyone thinks I should have posted this somewhere else, please let me know. Sooo...sorry if you guys think this is getting too off topic.
Fredfam,
Looked at your article. Indeed it was interesting. However, a few points deserve mention here. Firstly, the experiments were conducted with Plasmodium berghei, Plasmodium gallinaceum, and Plasmodium cynomolgi bastianelli which are not commonly implicated in either malarial infection or death in humans. Interestingly, these parasites are commonly used in experiments on rodents. Secondly, these were virus-like particles and were not definitively proven to be viruses although the assays performed do suggest a viral infection of the parasite. Indeed, to quote the authors of the paper “It is not unreasonable to suppose that the oocyst capsule constitutes a physical barrier to these particles throughout the majority of sporogony and effectively contains them.” The authors repeatedly refer to the intracellular nature of these particles, impyling that the “virus” is held inside the parasite. Thirdly the authors state at the end of the paper that these particles have only been found in the Sporogonic aspect of their life cycle (inside the mosquito). Although this does not preclude their presence in the Exo-erythrocytic or Erythrocytic (both in mammals) parts of the lifecycle, it had not been proven as of the date of this articles publishing in June 1976.
Now, I thought maybe some progress had been made on this subject in the last 32 years and performed a medline search for the terms: malaria (limited to Microbiology, Parasitology, Pathology, Therapy, Transmission, Etiology) and viruses (limited to Isolation & Purification, Pathogenicity, Genetics, Ultrastructure). Unfortunately, there seems to be no link that I could identify in the 30 results that came up (dating from 1996 to May 2007) that suggested malaria might be due to a virus. If you can find a more recent paper, or even one using the parasites that commonly infect humans, please let me know because I would love to read it.
Regarding your thinking that anti-viral medications should be tried on Malaria; my search did find some papers that seem to suggest that a potential therapeutic route that is emerging is the use of various viruses, coated with antigens from the Plasmodium falciparum parasite can be used to activate the immune system. Your body kills the virus, but learns to recognize the antigens. This in turn becomes a sort of immunity that could potentially prevent the actual infection by the parasite (if it is recognized and killed before it can infiltrate red blood cells and). However, no word is out there that this is in anything more than a research-based setting. If you would like some more information I can provide it. Also, do you think you could provide a research article that implicates lysine as an effective anti-viral therapy? I’m quite genuinely interested to see how that works.
Finally, how does this relate to dinosaurs and the bible? 1) dinosaurs probably got viruses just like people, cows, plants, dogs, fishes, bacteria, and anything else that’s alive gets viruses. Secondly – the bible makes no mention of viruses…. Hmmmmm.
Well,,I know I had a reason for pointing this out....but dang if I can remember it..
Sometimes I get side tracked but I'll go back and read your posts again to see if I can remember what you said that triggered that thought in me. Here is some info on lysine and its mechanisem of action. The only studies I can find are on Herpies and I only have limited studies to medline as you gotta pay for the really meaty juciy articles. Bear in mind that it appears to work by suppressing argenine which could have a bad impact on heart patients, (thats my idea anyway since argenien is necessary for NO production). Anyway here's that info.Lysine
Lysine is one of the essential amino acids. It is a building block of protein that the body cannot synthesize from other materials and, therefore, must be obtained from our diet. Different proteins have different ratios of amino acids including essential and non-essential amino acids. Arginine is another essential amino acid that must be obtained from our diet.
Lysine for Herpes
Lysine supplements and diets high in lysine and low in arginine have been used to discourage herpes outbreaks. Tissue culture studies have demonstrated that lysine inhibits viral replication. Analysis of the herpes simplex virons shows them to be rich in arginine and relatively lower in other essential amino acids including lysine. It appears that increasing the availability of lysine inhibits the utilization of arginine and slows virus replication. Experiments using Lysine supplements have shown that the intensity and frequency of outbreaks is reduced and quicker resolution of lesions is achieved.
With many natural treatments, there is a lack of testing to definitively assess the safety and efficacy of the treatment for its intended purpose. In the case of Lysine and Herpes, there have been a number of clinical studies. If you read through the references cited below, you will see that there have been conflicting results. In one study, serum lysine levels were measured.(1) It was determined that when a person's serum lysine concentration exceeded 165 nmol/ml there was a corresponding significant decrease in recurrence rate. Conversely, the frequency rate increased significantly as concentration levels fell below 165 nmol/ml. These results suggest that prophylactic lysine may be useful in managing selected cases of recurrent herpes simplex labialis if serum lysine levels can be maintained at adequate concentrations. Those studies that did not report positive results may not have used a high enough dose of lysine to be effective or the participants may have had a diet high in arginine.
It is also likely that arginine levels have an effect on results as well. If one wishes to suppress herpes virus growth with lysine supplements, it may be necessary to restrict arginine in the diet as well to keep the lysine to arginine ration in a favorable range. A list of foods with the arginine and lysine content and the arginine to lysine ratio is shown in the table below.
It should also be noted that the studies that recorded positive results noted a reduction in the frequency of outbreaks and duration of outbreaks, not a complete suppression of outbreaks. This suggests that while lysine appears to be a useful therapy, best results may be obtained by combining it with additional therapies, either natural or orthodox.
The dosage of lysine that has bee reported to keep herpes in remission and heal lesions varies from person to person. A typical dose to maintain remission has been reported to be approximately 500 mg. daily taken on an empty stomach between meals. The dosage required to induce healing has been reported to be between 1 and 6 grams between meals on an empty stomach.
Given that arginine is an essential amino acid and has important roles in endocrine function, long term arginine restriction may not be the best practice. Other treatment options may be more effective and desirable.
Another good thing for viral suppression is colloidial silver water. Very expensive but not if you learn how to make it correctly yourself. Also there are fake products of this nature on the market. So buyer beware. Here is some info on that.
The presence of Colloidal Silver near a virus, fungus, bacterium, or any other single~celled pathogen acts as a catalyst to disable those enzymes that pathogenic (disease~bearing) bacteria, viruses, and fungi require for the metabolism of oxygen to breathe and multiply. As a result, within a few minutes these physically disease~bearing microbes either starve or suffocate without any corresponding harm towards the various parts of the physical body chemistry, including enzymes. This leads to the complete physical balancing and cleansing of any disease~producing organism in the body, which are expelled from the body by the immune, lymphatic, and elimination systems.
The technical explanation for how Colloidal Silver constitutes itself is that it is manufactured by a highly technical, electro~colloidal non~chemical resonance in which particles (with 15 atoms or less) of 99.9929% fine silver are electrically charged and attached to a molecule of protein and held in suspension in a solution of de~ionized or distilled water. It is produced by passing a high~voltage electric current or frequency between two pure silver electrodes that are submerged in the water, thereby producing a specialized magnetic field. The electrical current then "peels off" microscopic~sized particles from the electrode and, at the same time, electrically charges them. Each particle of silver will have the same electro~magnetic charge, and thus will repel one another by holding themselves in suspension in the water solution. And properly prepared silver water will not turn you blue if you have a working liver.
And lastly there are zeolite products that work by trapping viral particals in a molecular cagelike matrix, (and I am aware of the different product claims and how one kind is supposed to work over another) When faced with conflicting data I always go to the product that sends for lab results on its clients to an independent lab. I called the lab that tests the zeolite manufactured by Wajora (sp?) and their product will produce the desired results using just 3 drops per day. That is the labs assesment. Of course the company insists for maximal health if one is ill the dose is 15 drops per day but the lab says thats a waste of money. ncd is the name of this product.
This product is also a safe chealating agent and will remove heavy metals and toxins without bad side effects.
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,879
- Reaction score
- 7
This word, "dinosaur", will not find anything in the Bible because the word, "Dinosaur", was not invented until 1841. So, the "King James Vision" Bible was translated into English lannguage in 1611... we would not expect to find that word, "dinosaur". I do believe in dinosuars may still alive around the world, some of dinosaur types are very rare to seen them.
sleepytaz
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,002
- Reaction score
- 0
I have to disagree. The Bible is filled with science. Many discoveries in science were made by great thinkers who took the Bible literally. Here is a cool web site on that topic.
Science In the Bible
And remember, 42% of all scientists believe in some form of creation theory.
And look at this list.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Science has not proven evolution and it still only exists as a theory. They can never prove it because they can not observe or demonstrate abiogenisis. And just becuase you find a fossil, the only thing you know for certain about it is that it died. You certainly don't know that it had any offspring that lived, let alone weather or not it is a link. Evolution clearly is more of a religion than a science. At least I know that when I study science I am approaching it from a believers standpoint, knowing from faith that science will point towards God. Evolutionists don't seem to be aware of just how much they must rely on faith in order to believe in evolution.
Science's job is not to prove anything. As a matter of fact, science's main objective is to disprove various assumptions or hypotheses. These hypotheses are tested in a controlled environment and if they stand the test of time they are accepted. Scientists actually accept the fact that gravity can never be proven. They also accept the fact they cannot prove time moves forward any more than they can prove that light moves at ~3.0x10^8m/s however, they have never been able to disprove these concepts. And in the face of overwhelming evidence they conclude that these "assumptions" are correct. Indeed should an experiment ever be devised that disproves any such therory, serious consideration would be given to the experiment and revision of the theory may become necessary.
As for abiogenesis, all I wish to add to this topic is to say that various amino acids such as lysine, arginine and ~30 others can be produced via an electrical current passed through a cloud of gases. Although science has never proven that life would come from these building blocks, it is intriguing, is it not?
Yes you are correct I need to post my links. I am still figuring out how to manipulate text on these sites and I just got cut and paste down. I will try and remember to put links as well. Sometimes I get reallly aggravated at this word processing thing.
The list was only a partial one of scientists who believe in the BIBLICAL account of Creation. I said that 42 oercent of scientists beleive in some form of creation theory. That includes those who believe God used evolution to create the world. Which I do not. Cheifly because believing this will eventuallly lead you to the conclusion that evolution could have occured without God if you are intellectually honest. I don't bleieve any God that needs Evolution to create anything is worthy of worship. That would fall into the theory of Aliens seeding the planet.
I was hoping you would post the amino acid argument:
Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.
If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.
I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry
And though the following link is not the site where I got the 42 % figure(I may have gotten that from a book, I'm still trying to remember) it offers many valuable insights into just which scientist believe in creation.
Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
I am sure there are some scientists who believe in creation. However, this does not say they don't believe evolution could co-exist. And I haven't been able to find any publications from them stating explicitly that creationism is a more credible theory.
Let me see if I can find you one. Be back later to report. However there is a book out right now you might find interesting if you have a longer attention span than I do. Its called, "Darwin On Trial" written by an agnostic who disbelieves in evolution. (If I haven't gotten the titles of the books I've read mixed up) The guy is also a lawyer which is why I believe is text is very boring, to me any way, but he does make some very interesting points presenting the case against evolution from a legal viewpoint.
Let me see if I can find you one. Be back later to report. However there is a book out right now you might find interesting if you have a longer attention span than I do. Its called, "Darwin On Trial" written by an agnostic who disbelieves in evolution. (If I haven't gotten the titles of the books I've read mixed up) The guy is also a lawyer which is why I believe is text is very boring, to me any way, but he does make some very interesting points presenting the case against evolution from a legal viewpoint.
Scientists are notoriously observed to be very difficult with each others works. Just think, this is exactly how they would react and are reacting to God's accomplishments.
Why God Never Received Tenure at Any University
1. He only had one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn't published in a referred journal.
5. Some even doubt He wrote it Himself.
6. It may be true that He created the world, but what has He done since then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating His results.
9. He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry, He tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
13. Some say He had His son teach the class.
14. He expelled His first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed His tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.
Why God Never Received Tenure at Any University
1. He only had one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn't published in a referred journal.
5. Some even doubt He wrote it Himself.
6. It may be true that He created the world, but what has He done since then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating His results.
9. He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry, He tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
13. Some say He had His son teach the class.
14. He expelled His first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed His tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.
this man had 3 Drs degrees and clearly stated Creationisim best fit the scientific evidence better that evolution.
One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5
A.E. Wilder-Smith (biographical info) -Creation SuperLibrary
One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5
A.E. Wilder-Smith (biographical info) -Creation SuperLibrary
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 31,020
- Reaction score
- 10
wow, interesting debate!!!!!!!!!!!
The ability to earn three doctorates is impressive but not uncommon in the scientific community. However, I have some burning questions that don't seem to be answered such as; 1) creationism was once accepted as the truth however, in light of scientific discoveries has been replaced by evolutionary theory; if creationism is indeed more correct and fits better with the compiled evidence, why has it not again come to the forefront? Why does creationism seem to need to fight to exist while evolution does not?
Changes in scientific thought happen over time (I think back to a time where it was once thought DNA could not possibly be the genetic material because it only consisted of four bases arranged in two pairs) and when overwhelming evidence is there, we are forced to concede our previous assumptions. I also wonder why lists of scientists believing in evolution are not compiled to compete with lists of those believing in creationism?
I finally also wonder why, if creationism is more appropriate given the volume of scientific knowledge, that major religions such as Catholicism and some protestant religions have not reverted to this thinking. Or maybe they have but I haven't found a definitive statement saying such. Indeed, in a webpage I found on the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law school's site that debated creationism and evolution referred to the words of Pope John Paul II in 1996:
"Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Indeed, many seem to accept the fact that a god could have operated his/her devine plan through the process of evolution. The being has infinite time, in theory, what does it matter if the work is done in a billion years plus?
However, I found some further articles for consideration on this subject in a variety of resources.
In the leading journal Nature, a letter based on an annonymous survey of 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found some interesting results when compared to similar studies conducted in 1914 and 1933;
Reference: Larson, E. and Witham, L. Leading scientists still reject God. Nature. 394(6691): 313, 1998 July.
I also found the following article delightful and highly recommend it to those with a sense of humour on this debate:
Cronstein B. Response to RFP: "rigorous test of intelligent design". FASEB Journal. 19(14):1936-7, 2005 Dec.
Finally, I have endeavoured to read much of the information provided by the ICR and the other websites posted. I would encourage those who believe in creationism to read this paper, I believe a fair look at the subject that actually tries to answer many questions people have surrounding it. You will have to bear with me, it is lengthy (23 pages with 95 references) but compiles information from all sides of the story.
Pennock, Robert T. Creationism and intelligent design. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 4:143-63, 2003.
Unfortunately, I believe that in the end here we have forgotten what we originally debated: Dinosaurs in the bible. In short, my stance is that given the lack of reference to hundred-ton reptiles that could easily have eaten humans for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and the lack of reference to other prehistoric beasts such as Casteroides, or even bacteria, protozoa, or other microscopic organisms, that this knowledge did not exist at the time. The bible was written millions of years after dinosaurs walked the earth. Oh, and to the best of my knowledge, to say the Earth is 6000 years old is to argue with geologists, cosmologists, and other such branches of science, not actually a debate with evolutionists.
Why does creationism seem to need to fight to exist while evolution does not?
Because the teaching of Evolution is government funded.
I also wonder why lists of scientists believing in evolution are not compiled to compete with lists of those believing in creationism?
They are but their existence was not in question. The existence of Scientists who believed in Creation was in doubt. So I only compiled some of those.
Or maybe they have but I haven't found a definitive statement saying such.
They are and now there are many coming back to the belief because they found out that the Scientists of the world, (or maybe it was really the sociologists in a dramatic attempt at social engeniering ) presented the educational world with lies and misleading information in order to perpetuate the belief in Evolution. (Read "250 Lies In The Textbooks")
Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Indeed many a Judas has given in to pressures to change their belief when money or currying government favor was sought.
ndeed, many seem to accept the fact that a god could have operated his/her devine plan through the process of evolution. The being has infinite time, in theory, what does it matter if the work is done in a billion years plus?
Well you already know my position on that. I maintain that a god who would require millions of years to accomplish a task of creation is no god that I would worship. And certainly not omnipotent.
Dinosaurs in the bible. In short, my stance is that given the lack of reference to hundred-ton reptiles that could easily have eaten humans for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and the lack of reference to other prehistoric beasts such as Casteroides, or even bacteria, protozoa, or other microscopic organisms, that this knowledge did not exist at the time.
There are two refereneces to my knowlege of beasts of that size in the Bible. As to the other non Biblical references during that time frame, I will compile them for you and get back to you. There are many collectors of artifacts that have carvings of dinosaurs from that time period that could only have come from living specimins. The knowledge that we have lost is much more than we have gained. The ancient Egyptions used battery powered light bulbs in the pyramids but most people are never shown those gliphs because it would cause to many questions.
Oh, and to the best of my knowledge, to say the Earth is 6000 years old is to argue with geologists, cosmologists, and other such branches of science, not actually a debate with evolutionists.
There is a substantial number of young earth geologists, and it is growing rapidly, who concur that there is more evidence for a young earth than there is an old earth, and I've never known any two cosmologists who could agree on anything in reguards to the age of the universe.
I would like to get back to the dinosaur issue as well and will do some research and post that a bit later.
Good discusion.
Because the teaching of Evolution is government funded.
I also wonder why lists of scientists believing in evolution are not compiled to compete with lists of those believing in creationism?
They are but their existence was not in question. The existence of Scientists who believed in Creation was in doubt. So I only compiled some of those.
Or maybe they have but I haven't found a definitive statement saying such.
They are and now there are many coming back to the belief because they found out that the Scientists of the world, (or maybe it was really the sociologists in a dramatic attempt at social engeniering ) presented the educational world with lies and misleading information in order to perpetuate the belief in Evolution. (Read "250 Lies In The Textbooks")
Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Indeed many a Judas has given in to pressures to change their belief when money or currying government favor was sought.
ndeed, many seem to accept the fact that a god could have operated his/her devine plan through the process of evolution. The being has infinite time, in theory, what does it matter if the work is done in a billion years plus?
Well you already know my position on that. I maintain that a god who would require millions of years to accomplish a task of creation is no god that I would worship. And certainly not omnipotent.
Dinosaurs in the bible. In short, my stance is that given the lack of reference to hundred-ton reptiles that could easily have eaten humans for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and the lack of reference to other prehistoric beasts such as Casteroides, or even bacteria, protozoa, or other microscopic organisms, that this knowledge did not exist at the time.
There are two refereneces to my knowlege of beasts of that size in the Bible. As to the other non Biblical references during that time frame, I will compile them for you and get back to you. There are many collectors of artifacts that have carvings of dinosaurs from that time period that could only have come from living specimins. The knowledge that we have lost is much more than we have gained. The ancient Egyptions used battery powered light bulbs in the pyramids but most people are never shown those gliphs because it would cause to many questions.
Oh, and to the best of my knowledge, to say the Earth is 6000 years old is to argue with geologists, cosmologists, and other such branches of science, not actually a debate with evolutionists.
There is a substantial number of young earth geologists, and it is growing rapidly, who concur that there is more evidence for a young earth than there is an old earth, and I've never known any two cosmologists who could agree on anything in reguards to the age of the universe.
I would like to get back to the dinosaur issue as well and will do some research and post that a bit later.
Good discusion.
- Status