Turn on thread page Beta

Religion attempting to disprove science watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I found this posted on a religious chat forum. The person is attempting to use the laws of physics to explain why there is no explanation for our existence other than creation.

    Feel free to post your views after reading the post. (Sorry that it's so long)

    ''When I discuss evolution with the "educated" scholars of academia they are wholly sold on the idea. I have tried to use the bible in my arguments with them but since they don't believe in it, the bible is foolishness to them. I have found great succeess, however, with using scientific laws to disprove evolution. I use three simple laws of science:

    1. 1st Law of Thermodynamics (The law of conservation of energy)
    2. Newton's 1st Law of motion (the Law of Inertia)
    3. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the disorder of an open system)

    Simply put, these three laws state that within the confines of a closed system (in our case the Universe, all things that exist), energy cannot be created or destroyed, nothing happens unless an outside force acts upon it, and all systems in the Universe will evenutally decay. These three laws go totally against the theory of evolution. This is why evolution is still a theory. Scientist, much as they have tried, have never been able to rationalize evolution against these three laws.

    The first law of thermodynamics states that energy (or matter) cannot be created or destroyed. This means that everything in the universe that exists has existed from the beginning of time and that the universe could have have created itself. There must be an outside force to create the universe. The only thing outside the entire universe is a supernatural being.

    The 2nd law states that nothing happens unless it is acted upon by an outside force. In the case of the universe, the Big Bang theory is impossible. The theory goes that everything in the universe once existed in the one very small piece of matter. Then, all of the sudden, it exploded and produced the universe. The only possible way this could have happened is for a force outside of the universe to make it happen. Once again, the only force outside the universe is a supernatural being.

    The 3rd law states that every system in the universe will eventually decay. The theory of evolution is the exact opposite. Evolution states that disparate systems (separate, unlike and distant particles or chemicals) spontaneously came together to form life. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that this is impossible. Take a look at anything in the entire universe: sun, moon, stars, a wrist watch, any living creature. All of these things eventually decay and breakdown. Nothing that we know of today or at any time in history has ever "created" itself. If evolution were truen then, in theory, you could take all of the parts of several watches, put them in a bag and after a few million years of shaking, you would have a fully functioning and working watch. We all know this is insane and would never happen. In fact, after that much shaking you would have a bag of metal dust. Same is true with life. The only possible answer to the creation of life is, once again, a supernatural being.

    I have found these arguments to stop scientific academics in their tracks. They cannot explain how evolution can be true and still violate these simple and true laws of physics.''
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Science has rendered religion obsolete. It is an artefact - a memorial of a bygone age where faith provided illumination for aspects of existence incomprehensible to humans. No longer neccessary - humankind has moved onwards.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    evolution does not go against the second law of thermodynamics. true, there is order created out of chaos (which seems to contradict TD2), but this is at the expense of energy being used, and creating heat, which puts evolution on the right side of TD2
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The theories of the big bang and of evolution are still more reasonable than the ideas in Genesis.

    Mr White, what you have said is offensive to some people ... it would have been more considerate to say that even if its scientifically proven not to be true, its a comforting feeling believing in a religion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *dave*)
    The theories of the big bang and of evolution are still more reasonable than the ideas in Genesis.

    Mr White, what you have said is offensive to some people ... it would have been more considerate to say that even if its scientifically proven not to be true, its a comforting feeling believing in a religion.

    and that is the beauty of an opinion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *dave*)
    Mr White, what you have said is offensive to some people ... it would have been more considerate to say that even if its scientifically proven not to be true, its a comforting feeling believing in a religion.
    Albeit a naive one. Who is likely to be offended by my comments, anyway? This isn't the dark ages, you know - I am allowed to say things that disagree with Christian philosophy without fear of being reprimanded by the Spanish Inquisition. The world has progressed, or hadn't you noticed?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    maybe he was living in a small cardboard box can hardly blame him then!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    maybe he was living in a small cardboard box
    Or maybe he's just not particularly bright.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The person says that the fact that you cannot form a watch by shaking the pieces together for a long period of time disproves evolution. The argument is irrelevant. Firstly, evolution does not work by the random assortment of molecules or cells to create complexity, rather the non-random process of natural selection. The person fails to understand that the experiment of shaking the watch relies on the final product (the intact watch) being created in a single step- from bits of watch to a fully operational timepiece. Again, this is not how evolution works. It is a cumulative process, each stage building upon the previous stage to eventually create order and complexity. I would happily accept that if you shook together tiny pieces of 'me' for an eternity then you would never be able to create 'me' as I am. But evolution does not shake things around. It produces almost unnoticeable changes in structure which are just sufficient to provide some degree of physiological benefit to individuals. They then become more frequent in a population, and given enough change and enough time, it is possible to build complexitiy from simple molecules.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    harsh...

    Although back on topic, I don't see how you can say science has rendered religion obsolete, as many questions still go very much unanswered..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    harsh...

    Although back on topic, I don't see how you can say science has rendered religion obsolete, as many questions still go very much unanswered..
    and religion creates those questions....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    harsh...

    Although back on topic, I don't see how you can say science has rendered religion obsolete, as many questions still go very much unanswered..
    Only a matter of time... most enlightened individuals know that science will eventually find an answer to everything. It requires patience.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well thats a very narrow view, your giving some pre assumption that enlightened individuals have some amazing knowledge that science will eventually explain everything...which is completely unfounded unless you know something I don't...

    Does religion really give rise to these questions? Are we as human beings not just naturally inquisitive?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I would more readily accept that the laws of science are wrong than I would believe in creation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Well thats a very narrow view, your giving some pre assumption that enlightened individuals have some amazing knowledge that science will eventually explain everything...which is completely unfounded unless you know something I don't...

    Does religion really give rise to these questions? Are we as human beings not just naturally inquisitive?
    We are inquisitive and that is why we created religion. To provide answers to satisfy those who feel that there must be something more. But I have to say that I agree with Mr White on this one. Science will eventually end religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    ...unless you know something I don't...
    Common sense?

    (Original post by corey)
    Does religion really give rise to these questions? Are we as human beings not just naturally inquisitive?
    Not really - hence the invention of religion. A way of answering questions and concepts we are afraid to face.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    But does one person's 'common sense' not lead to the view of God's existence? Your common sense is not particulary jusified (neither would a theists view), it just assumes that science will explain everything eventually...

    And science was created to just answer these questions in a naturalistic way... However, what makes you so sure that science will eventually explain everything? Common sense is hardly an adequte reponse..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    But does one person's 'common sense' not lead to the view of God's existence? Your common sense is not particulary jusified (neither would a theists view), it just assumes that science will explain everything eventually...

    And science was created to just answer these questions in a naturalistic way... However, what makes you so sure that science will eventually explain everything? Common sense is hardly an adequte reponse..
    How can common sense lead to somebody believing in god. Not only is it not logical but it avoids the answer to the question at hand. You then have to ask how god was created and if you come to the conclusion that He was created by an even higher being, you end up going on infinitely until you accept that the first creator cannot have been created. Either this, or you believe that He has been around forever. This is also illogical and it is a concept which I for one can certainly not perceive. At least evolution suggests an explanation for how order was created from disorder. Creation is simply how order is created from order (how can a god be disordered). Why then is the views of a theist not justified? Science was not created, but has existed long before the age of experimentation. We simply gave it a name.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    science is built on belief just like religion so neither can eve3r make the other obselite. It is much easier to attempt to justify scientific reasoning with experimental data than it is to justify religeous reasoning but in the end it comes down to belief. there is no such thing as fact and nothing can be preoven - we just choose to believe what seems best to us - some people believe god created the universe some believe the big bang. neither can ever be proved right or wrong
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    On the point of creation, why must we go right back further and further saying who created God etc etc

    Saying the universe is a 'brute fact' (Russell) is a pretty stupid notion as causality applies to physical matter, it seems a much better explaination to stop at God who is transcendant where it is a much more likely prospect that causality is not there or at least different.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.