Turn on thread page Beta

Religion attempting to disprove science watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Religion is an obscenity. The catholic church, especially. Look at it's history, it's littered with hatred and despicable deeds: The Spanish Inquistion, repression of truth, castration of young boys for the Vatican's choirs, mass-witch hunts, execution of countless scientists and intellectuals, etc.

    Even today, the church and its morals stand in the way of advancement. Cloning, genetic engineering, etc. are all unable to be researched because of the church's constant protests. A bunch of old men playing at running the world.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    why should morality give way for advancement?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    why should morality give way for advancement?
    Because it isn't 'morality'. The church seems to believe that humans shouldn't 'play god' - well, why not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If humans don't play God, then who will? God? pah!! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ralfskini)
    If humans don't play God, then who will? God? pah!! :rolleyes:
    Exactly. Dues Ex Machina.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    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.
    If god exists then He too must be made of matter (or antimatter). Therefore, causality must apply to him in the same way as it applies to everything else that exists. Again, I must emphasize that you cannot use complexity to explain complexity. If in the unlikely event that a god does exist, He cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for our own existence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why is it always either science disproving religion or now religion disrpoving science? Is it beyond comprehension that science and religion are in fact linked and can help to prove each other. Also the understanding of creation should not be taken too literally. Like nearly all of the old testament genesis is not outlining facts but rather portraying a point throught story. Although science may point to a big bang theory where did the matter to supply the big bang originate? Science still does not have an answer for that or many other questions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sarco)
    Science still does not have an answer for that or many other questions.
    And religion does?

    Perhaps to the extent of: "God did it."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    And religion does?

    Perhaps to the extent of: "God did it."
    But you seem to dismiss one and welcome the other with open arms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All theories, religious and scientific point to a start...why can't matter just ALWAYS have been there? (eg. the big bang was preceeded by the big crunch?)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by king of swords)
    All theories, religious and scientific point to a start...why can't matter just ALWAYS have been there? (eg. the big bang was preceeded by the big crunch?)
    What preceeded the big crunch?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sarco)
    But you seem to dismiss one and welcome the other with open arms.
    That's because one makes sense and the other doesn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ralfskini)
    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.''
    Isn't quantum physics posing some interesting questions and beginning to at least trying to develop answers to some of very tough questions. And isn't it true that all physics works all of the time, ie s=d/t doesn't work at speeds approaching the speed of light. There are loads of strange occurences in physics. I don't think it's worth saying "if we can't explain it, it must be God".

    It seems like it would have been much easier if it wasn't created at all, so this whole life and universe is a little strange in my opinion I wonder why it was created. God perhaps? Who knows, but I have to agree it seems more likely than it just happened. I need more convincing about why the first basic fundamental stages of evolution kicked off but Im convinced from then on. I think there could have been a helper from the heavens at the big bang.

    Don't you think that be exploring reality using both science and religion we get closer to finding what it's all about? But don't always believe the religous lot, some times they talk crap and they definetly have more of an agenda than the science lot. I went to a website investigating this stuff an the last page was like some kind of mission statement asking me to donate money to spread the world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sarco)
    Is it beyond comprehension that science and religion are in fact linked and can help to prove each other..
    Yes.

    ..[/QUOTE]
    Although science may point to a big bang theory where did the matter to supply the big bang originate? Science still does not have an answer for that or many other questions.[/QUOTE]

    The matter certainly didnt come from a god. The matter required to create a complex conscious being such as a god would have to be much more ordered than that necessary for the big bang.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by king of swords)
    All theories, religious and scientific point to a start...why can't matter just ALWAYS have been there? (eg. the big bang was preceeded by the big crunch?)
    but how can it have always been there? what made it there? surely everything must have a cause. and there's evidence for the big bang- we're in an expanding universe (red shift), there must have been some kind of force to make it expand...

    lou xxx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sarco)
    What preceeded the big crunch?
    a previous big bang
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lou p lou)
    but how can it have always been there? what made it there? surely everything must have a cause. and there's evidence for the big bang- we're in an expanding universe (red shift), there must have been some kind of force to make it expand...

    lou xxx
    Ok it's expanding now....but that doesn't mean the overall force is back into the centre (the centre being the point at which the big bang occured)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Science and religion cannot be in unison. One is a possible solution to a problem and the other is a set of beliefs which are not based on proof. Despite this, Science does not attempt to disprove creation. It simply tries to find answers to an ancient problem. Science has not yet found any proof for the existence of a god and so religious morons think that science is acting against them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ralfskini)
    Science and religion cannot be in unison. One is a possible solution to a problem and the other is a set of beliefs which are not based on proof. Despite this, Science does not attempt to disprove creation. It simply tries to find answers to an ancient problem. Science has not yet found any proof for the existence of a god and so religious morons think that science is acting against them.
    I agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    I agree.
    Ditto!
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.