by nakedmvistar 72 Replies latest watchtower bible
Science books 200 years ago were laughable
Ummmm...because they didn't exist?
'Science' isn't 200 years old. We had 'philosophers' then, to be sure. Not quite the same thing as a scientist. They actually had more in common with religion than science, in fact.
Joannes Agricola [1589-1643] - Treatise on Gold
Commentaries, Notes, and Observations Regarding, the CHYMICAL MEDICINE of JOHANNES POPPIUS
Wherein all processes are carefully examined, corrected of errors, and augmented and illustrated by several hundred new processes and secret manipulations taken from his own experience,
Where also the right use of medicines is verified by several hundred case histories,in addition to a complete revelation of what is to be done with them in surgery, and alchemy, or the transmutations of metals. For all persons of respectability, physicians, surgeons, chymists, barbers, army-surgeons, horse-doctors, goldsmiths, and all householders most useful to read and use. Oportet sapietiam transferr ad medicinam, & medicinam ad sapientiam. Medicus enim Philosophus est Deo aequalis.
Printed by Gregorius Ritzschen in the year 1638.
Translated from the original by Leone Muller, 1988.
The Art of Distillation. Or, A Treatise of the Choicest Spagyrical Preparations Performed by Way of Distillation, Being Partly Taken Out of the Most Select Chemical Authors of the Diverse Languages and Partly Out of the Author's Manual Experience together with, The Description of the Chiefest Furnaces and Vessels Used by Ancient and Modern Chemists also A Discourse on Diverse Spagyrical Experiments and Curiosities, and of the Anatomy of Gold and Silver, with The Chiefest Preparations and Curiosities Thereof, and Virtues of Them All. All Which Are Contained In Six Books Composed By John French, Dr. of Physick London.
Printed by Richard Cotes and are to sold by Thomas Williams at the Bible in Little-Britain without Aldersgate, 1651.
This is the complete book with 42 woodcuts of alchemical apparatus in the text. Return to top
Culpeper, Nicholas, 1616-1654.
The English physitian: or an astrologo-physical discourse of the vulgar herbs of this nation. London : Peter Cole, 1652.
8 p.l., 255 p. (i.e. 159 p.), [5] p., front. (port.)
Pages numbered 1-92, 189-255.
This electronic version was prepared by Richard Siderits, M.D., and colleagues by keying from the copy at the Historical Library, Cushing/Whitney Medical Library, Yale University. Adaptation to HTML by Toby Appel.
The Historical Medical Library at Yale in conjunction with Richard Siderits, M.D., is putting up a series of popular medical works of the 16th-18th centuries on the Web. Return to top
Robert Boyle - Degredation of Gold
This is an interesting piece by Robert Boyle in the form of allegorical discourse about the possibility of alchemical transmutation. It was first published under the title Of a Degradation of Gold made by an anti-elixir: a strange chymical narrative. London, 1678. This book is now extremely rare. The text below was transcribed for me by Justin von Bujdoss from the second edition, issued in London in 1739. Return to top
[This extract is taken from the English translation by Christopher Packe of The Works... of Johann Rudolph Glauber printed in London in 1689. Although historians often portray Glauber as a proto-scientific chemist (he is credited with the identification of Glauber's Salt now known as Sodium Sulphate), Glauber worked extensively with alchemical ideas as well as developing laboratory techniques for distillation and control of furnaces. This extract illustrates very well Glauber's reworking of the classic sequence of colour changes in the process of transmutation. -A. McLean] | Return to top || Page 2 |
Richard Green Parker , A school compendium of natural and experimental philosophy, embracing the elementary principles of mechanics, hydrostatics, hydrauics, pneumatics, acoustics, pyronomics, optics, electricity, galvanism, magnetic, electro-magnetic, magneto-electricity, and astronomy, containing also a description of the steam and locomotive engines, and of the electro-magnetic telegraph. New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. 1854.
The first three chapters only are online.
Scientific Secrets - Daniel Young 1861. Young's demonstrative translation of scientific secrets; or a collection of above 500 useful receipts on a variety of subjects. Toronto: Rowsell & Ellis, 1861 The whole book is recorded.
And your point is?
Assuming your list is fairly representative (I tend to think it is), then you've just proven my point. The first reference to 'science' was in 1861, and even then, it wasn't yet regarded as a discipline of study with a defined methodoly.
Again - more similar to religion than science.
Uh, I beg to differ but I'll just let the audience decide. Certainly science has been going on for thousands of years and started as philosophy. As each field matured, it split off and nurtured a separate discipline.
My point is that "science" has evolved and mutated for a very blong time. I could of course provide many more examples but any philosophy major will confirm this evolution.
This is a very interesting thread on creationism/evolutionism.
Right up front I want you to know that I am a creationist. Yes, being a creationist does take faith but so does being an evolutionist take faith. Neither can proof their own, as one of you stated, "paradigms". Evolution is as must a religion as anyother. Its just that their "God" is not the same.
True Science is something that can be proven by observation and demonstration. Neither creationism or evolution can do either. What both really do is setup models using known scientific truths to show that their beliefs or side of the issue best fits those truths.
One of you stated that "evolutionists 'require' nothing because science isn't trying to do anything but come up with viable explainations for phenomenon based upon evidence observed in the natural world."
This is just a lot of bull. Evolution and science are not one and the same at all. Evolutionists do have something to prove and will used any means necessary to do so. What is it that they want to prove? That there is NO God, a supreme being of some sort. They are the reasons for this Godless world that we seem to have to live in. They are the reason our society has gone to pot. How is that? Well, through their false teaching in the schools. They can NOT prove evolution is true any more than creationists can. Yet, because they are so-called "scientists" and know everything it has to be so. If you don't believe me, then just poll a number of people off the street and ask why do they belive in evolution and see what the results are. The evolutionists control the schools and the media and are forcing their godless beliefs on all of us.
If you are a creationist and teach in a university you must keep it a secret or you lose your jobs. This is a fact that can not be denied. Lately, more and more of these "scientists" are now coming out of the closets showing themselves to be creationists because the more evolutionists discover the more it is really going against their paradigms and giving support to the creationists. Example; evolutionists have given us early man that they had found and that they dated as hundreds of thousands of years old. That wasn't good enough, so then they found more and kept moving the date further and further back to now the lastest find is dated over 1.8 million yrs old. So then they point out that early man dates from 100,000 to 1.8 million yrs old and say, "see evolution is a fact." Along comes another and find a man who looks just klike you and me and, Lord guess what, he dates even older than any previous find ever. What happened to the evolutionary process? It turns out that all of these so-called early men are NOT part of an evolutionary process.
I'll need to come back to this. I have to run I didn't realize the time.
Xan,
I am not here saying that the bible is some word for word historical fact book!! I believe in the MESSAGE of the bible. Common folks, the bible as we know it is FAR from the original (but then again there was no BIBLE!)
Im still waiting for someone to tell me what started the big bang or what was before it.
Xan, have you seen the big bang?? Yet you believe in it......
Xan, have you seen the big bang?? Yet you believe in it......
You make interesting assumptions.
In the world of contemporary science there are many "invisible" forces at work which we can only measure the affects thereof. Gravity and magnatism are two examples that come to mind. As such they represent a conceptual scheme that provides for other less measurable metaphysical forces that are becoming more and more accepted by formerly materialistic philosophers. Evolution makes no claim on the "origin of life", it simply lays out a series of testable formulae that result in change over time of living organisms. Due to Mendel and others that have followed in the study of genetics, we can now begin to understand the mechanism for change, albeit not without some prejudices. We have come so far in the past half century in understanding the relationship between protein strands (RNA and DNA) and their outword expressions, (physical appearance, propensities toward behavior, diseases, etc.) that we are very close to being caught up into the assumption that we can solve all mysteries using a mechanical model. Alas, with but a smigin of humility, we realize that we may know much more but we still are unable to go beyond linking the dots to demonstrate change and making a leap of faith to assume that life began as a happy accident in some primordial pond energized by lightning.
Carmel, holding out for an intelligent creative force behind the universe using practical means to demonstrate purpose as well as design.
Xan,
Sorry, since you seem to be a big science fan I presumed that you believed in the big bang. My bad.
These are my favorite kind of posts as long as they don't degenerate into name calling. You can't prove any thing with that.
I.M.O. The whole debate between creation and evolution is really simple. You can't "prove" either one. However you can disprove one of them. Evolution is easily disproven. There simply are NO transitional creatures anywhere nor has there ever been.
To revisit the car example- I cannot disprove Henry Ford's ghost made your car. I can strain the credibilty of your statement but cannot disprove it. The best I can do is cast doubt on it. However, if I said my Lincoln evolved, on its own, from a Model T, I would have to show some cars(at least one) that was part one model and part another model. If I could not do that, to believe my statement you would have to use more faith than I would to believe yours simply because you made no claim to verifiable evidence while I did but was not able to produce it.Bad example I know, because with a car unlike us, there are a whole myriad of ways you could prove where it came from and who built it, and someone could even build a 1/2 Lincoln and 1/2 Model T, just go with the spirit of it.
If you don't believe that creationists practice science then you must not believe evolutionists do either. Evolution is there only because it adherents cannot accept the possibilty that there might be a God. Lets look at something Darwin believed-inheritable mutation. He believed that something he called gemmules floated from the affected part of you to you genitals thereby altering you DNA. That is just funny. A scientist trying to prove this started cutting the tails off of lab rats then breeding them. Amazingly every new generation of rats had their tails again. Another did it with fruit flies and xray radiation. After thousands of generations they didn't turn into something else.
Anyway, my two cents are in.
Todd
