Member baru? Bingung? Perlu bantuan? Silakan baca panduan singkat untuk ikut berdiskusi.

Welcome to Forum Sains Indonesia. Please login or sign up.

Agustus 13, 2022, 06:44:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Topik Baru

Artikel Sains

Anggota
Stats
  • Total Tulisan: 139,633
  • Total Topik: 10,390
  • Online today: 35
  • Online ever: 441
  • (Desember 17, 2011, 09:48:51 AM)
Pengguna Online
Users: 0
Guests: 24
Total: 24

Aku Cinta ForSa

ForSa on FB ForSa on Twitter

Hubungan antara Agama dengan Sains.

Dimulai oleh semut-ireng, Maret 05, 2010, 12:25:57 PM

« sebelumnya - berikutnya »

0 Anggota dan 1 Pengunjung sedang melihat topik ini.

semut-ireng

Apa dan bagaimana hubungan yang tepat antara Agama dengan Sains ?

Kutipan  :

  " Science without Religion is Lame,  Religion without Science is Blind  "  (  Einstein ).


  "  Gravity explains the motions of the planets,  but it cannot explain who set the  planets in motion.   God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done. "  (  Newton  ).

Pi-One

Kutip dari: semut-ireng pada Maret 05, 2010, 12:25:57 PM
Apa dan bagaimana hubungan yang tepat antara Agama dengan Sains ?

Kutipan  :

  " Science without Religion is Lame,  Religion without Science is Blind  "  (  Einstein ).
Lagi-lagi....

Einstein itu agnostik, lantas apa makna religi yang dimaksud Einstein? bahkan Einstein menyebut religinya adalah religi baru yagn amat berbeda dengan religi yang ada selama ini. Lantas kenapa theis suka sekali mengutip tulisan Einstein, seakan Einstein membenarkan Tuhan dan agama mereka?

KutipMy feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with tile consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature."

    — Letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797


My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

    — Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215


I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

    — Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434


My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.

    — Quoted in the New York Times obituary April 19, 1955


cronny

Kalau mao pake contoh yah si Francis Collins aja. Dia seorang theist dan ilmuwan yg dihormati di bidang nya.
Kalau make einstein sebagai contoh untuk menguatkan pendapat theisme, kaya nya janggal banget.. Einstein bilang, theisme itu cuma dongeng aja.. Bahkan bukan dongeng yg baik.
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?


cronny

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?

Pi-One

Wah... THL mau bawa paradigma baunya ke semua thread nih...

The Houw Liong

#6
Hubungan sains dan agama menurut ilmuwan yang terkenal dari segi sains informasi.

[pranala luar disembunyikan, sila masuk atau daftar.]
HouwLiong

Pi-One

#7
Another creationist? Membaca profil... Jago Marketing... Googling... Penuh link adword dan MLM...baca salah satu artikel 'ilmiah' dia tentang evolusi... useless... Baca soal alam semestra... mesti gabung (dan bayar)... ::)

parmin

^
^
EMANG GA PERNAH BERUBAH YAH PENGANUT TEORY ACAK DAN KEBETULAN
ORANGNYA JUGA ACAK ACAKAN PERSIS KAYA TEORINYA HIKZZ
[

Pi-One

#9
Kutip dari: parmin pada Maret 06, 2010, 09:24:32 AM
^
^
EMANG GA PERNAH BERUBAH YAH PENGANUT TEORY ACAK DAN KEBETULAN
ORANGNYA JUGA ACAK ACAKAN PERSIS KAYA TEORINYA HIKZZ
Orang yang asbun seperti anda, pernah berubah? Gak tahu beda random dan kebetulan?

Terbentuknya badai itu random, tapi tidak kebetulan. Itu saja anada ngerti?

The Houw Liong

#10
Kutip dari: Pi-One pada Maret 06, 2010, 11:25:30 AM
Kutip dari: parmin pada Maret 06, 2010, 09:24:32 AM
^
^
EMANG GA PERNAH BERUBAH YAH PENGANUT TEORY ACAK DAN KEBETULAN
ORANGNYA JUGA ACAK ACAKAN PERSIS KAYA TEORINYA HIKZZ
Orang yang asbun seperti anda, pernah berubah? Gak tahu beda random dan kebetulan?

Terbentuknya badai itu  adalah random, tapi tidak kebetulan. Itu saja anada ngerti?

Namun, terbentuknya DNA tidak bisa dijelaskan dengan memasukkan unsur random.

[pranala luar disembunyikan, sila masuk atau daftar.]
HouwLiong

Pi-One

Tidak bisa? Bukankah yang pertama kali terbentuk bukan DNA? Bukankah hipotesanya DNA berkembang dari RNA? bahkan dalam abiogenesis modern sekalipun, makhluk pertama yang terbentuk tidak memiliki DNA...

The Houw Liong

Kutip dari: Pi-One pada Maret 07, 2010, 11:44:48 AM
Tidak bisa? Bukankah yang pertama kali terbentuk bukan DNA? Bukankah hipotesanya DNA berkembang dari RNA? bahkan dalam abiogenesis modern sekalipun, makhluk pertama yang terbentuk tidak memiliki DNA...
Hipotesa itu belum terbukti.
Abiogenesis yang anda anut belum memenuhi logico-empiricism.
Belum terbukti baik secara teori/komputasi, maupun secara empiris.
HouwLiong

The Houw Liong

Furthermore, the authors found that, given the minimal time perceived to be necessary for evolution to occur, cytosine is unstable even at temperatures as cold as 0º C.  Without cytosine neither DNA or RNA can exist.  One of the main problems with Miller's theory is that his experimental methodology has not been able to produce much more than a few amino acids which actually lend little or no insight into possible mechanisms of abiogenesis.

Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions.  What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars:  It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble.  With somewhat more complex molecules these difficulties rapidly increase.  In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties.  In any case, nucleotides have not yet been produced in realistic experiments of the kind Miller did. (Cairns-Smith, 1985, p. 90).
HouwLiong

The Houw Liong

Articles appearing regularly in scientific journals claim to have generated self-replicating peptides or RNA strands, but they fail to provide a natural source for their compounds or an explanation for what fuels them... this top-down approach... [is like] a caveman coming across a modern car and trying to figure out how to make it.  "It would be like taking the engine out of the car, starting it up, and trying to see how that engine works" (Simpson, 1999, p.26).
Some bacteria, specifically phototrophs and lithotrophs, contain all the metabolic machinery necessary to construct most of their growth factors (amino acids, vitamins, purines and pyrimidines) from raw materials (usually O2, light, a carbon source, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur and a dozen or so trace minerals).  They can live in an environment with few needs but first must possess the complex functional metabolic machinery necessary to produce the compounds needed to live from a few types of raw materials.  This requires more metabolic machinery in order to manufacture the many needed organic compounds necessary for life.  Evolution was much more plausible when life was believed to be a relatively simple material similar to, in Haeckel's words, the "transparent viscous albumin that surrounds the yolk in the hen's egg" which evolved into all life today.  Haeckel taught the process occurred as follows:

By far the greater part of the plasm that comes under investigation as active living matter in organisms is metaplasm, or secondary plasm, the originally homogeneous substance of which has acquired definite structures by phyletic differentiations in the course of millions of years (1905, p.126).
Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability.  Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory.  Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered "life law" are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.

Acknowledgements:  I want to thank Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Wayne Frair, Ph.D., and John Woodmorappe, M.A., for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo.  He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities.  He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.  

HouwLiong