In response to Matt’s comments, let me say that I am actually well-educated and know a few things about science, having studied meteorology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, anthropology, and the environment since back in the 70’s. I have been a student or disciple in Christianity since the 60’s.
One problem with his response is that it ignores scientific process. Imagine a drug company that says they have a scientific theory that a drug may cure an illness, and goes to the FDA with that argument, seeking approval to market the drug. The FDA would laugh them out of Washington and question their sanity.
Scientific process moves hypothesis to theory to law. Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein understood this and wrote theories first and if possible to prove, then a law. And what was not provable remains theory until or unless it can be proven. The law of gravity and the theory of relativity are two good examples that all can somewhat relate to.
So, scientific process involves the following seven steps:
1. Purpose
2. Research
3. Hypothesis
4. Materials
5. Procedure
6. Results
7. Conclusion
This is basic stuff that high school students learn! Step 5 is perhaps the most important one here because while scientists and amateurs can move through steps 1-4 quite easily, step 5 is a problem. You see, step 5 calls for a procedure by which you will carry out a controlled experiment to prove the hypothesis. With that controlled experiment completed, you can capture and analyze results (Step 6) and publish a conclusion (Step 7).
While his point on scientific theories goes without disagreement, the result there is something that is unproven—conjecture—and lacks concrete evidence. This is why the theory of evolution is just that. There are missing pieces and no-one understands how or why the supposed evolutions occurred. There is no fossil record to support the obviously required in-between stages.
I cannot argue adaptation, but to suppose that some pond ooze became electrically charged, clumped together, and developed over millennia into a greatly improved, complex mass of engineering and chemical processes that we have today is ludicrous.
Some use the idea of a nuclear explosion over a junk yard producing and fully functional 747 in its aftermath as the rough equivalent of this theory.
But here is where science contradicts itself. The second law of thermodynamics…
Well, I’ll assume it is a law that applies universally since it is referred to as a law. Therfore it must apply here as well.
…would indicate that unless that ooze was continually acted on by an external force, it would tend to fall into a state of entropy and disorder. It could not of its own accord become a more complex and different organism with specialized systems and processes.
Again, even if such WERE possible, where are the mid-stage forms of ANY organism that shows an evolutionary (not adaptive) change? They have not been found.
MORE:
https://trebord.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/when-theory-becomes-fact/
“Centrifugal” force may be a pseudo-force, but it does not mean it does not exist. Inertia and rotation can be used to explain it, and some say it is a lack of centripetal force. Of course, since it is not a “true” force, some dismiss it—others explain it, but continue to use the term as a common point of reference.
Here’s a good site for the non-physicists among us:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20centrifugal%20force.htm
The article explains it well as a matter of science rather than as an argument against religion.
Consistently god denying? Rubbish. It’s scientific. If you want to argue this on the basis of science, you cannot impose your own personal opinion as to what a scientific principle means. Your use of the laws of thermodynamics are in conflict with what they mean to explain.
On another note, the point that we don’t have an explanation as to what makes up the various forces of nature does not mean that goddidit. Particle physics has good hypotheses as to what goes on, and we have made progress in the field. CERN is also one of the tools to investigate this further. Sitting back and claiming that it’s just God, is purposely ignorant and as history shows us, has never led us anywhere.
Whether you wanna contribute these things to a deity, and more specifically God, is a matter of faith and philosophy, but confusing this with science is a futile endeavor and leads nowhere. God does nothing but complicate the issue as he himself needs even further explanation.
Whether or not there may exist unknown forces in the universe or beyond (whatever that means) we can nothing but speculate, and a honest man can not but be agnostic to such questions. Pulling a several millennia old deity out of old books to explain this is beyond any logic whatsoever, except for the fact that the concept is socially imposed on those growing up in the western culture. The fact alone that this is not the case in other cultures is as well a fairly clear indication to the sketchy validity of any ancient religious claim.
PS. There is no centrifugal force…
Jide,
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I lived in England for a time—all to short of a time. I love the country and the people.
While we don’t share an appreciation for Mr Obama, it is good to know that we share an allegiance to a much higher authority.
It’s always good to get to know our “family” from around the world. I appreciate you taking time to comment.
“Cheers”
P.S. – Yours is one of two visits to my site from Nigeria.
Frank,
The nice thing is I welcome all comments. Thanks for the feedback and the civility of your response.
No, I’m not saying I have 30+ years of solid study of these disciplines, but rather that I have a considerable history of scientific studies throughout the past 30-some years and am far from ignorant of what science offers and teaches, or what the “theory” process entails. It was a rebuttal to Matt’s assertion that I know little about science (in general) as opposed to any claim of expertise or scholarship.
Thanks for the link as well. I find it interesting, but predictably consistent with the God-denying philosophy.
My argument is that God WAS the force behind creation and IS the force that maintains creation. My argument is that He didn’t need billions of years to get to this point.
I’ll also assert that science knows there is a force that holds things in place. Some of these forces are unseen but quantifiable: Magnetic, Electrical, Centrifugal, Centripetal, and Gravitational are a few examples. Science knows of them but cannot answer questions about them such as how and why they came into existence, or why they are universal in their properties right down to the sub-atomic level.
There are forces unseen at work as well that man cannot quantify and is therefore all to willing to deny. That’s where faith comes in.
Trebord,
I am here because God Almighty wanted me to see this beautifully put together site.
By the way, thanks to AlphaInventions who recommended this site.
I just find the way you analyse your points and the manner you have exhibited your thoughts, very fascinating.
I am so glad that Intellects like your humble self have the courage to create time to put these ‘Big bang’ theories in the dust bin – exactly where they belong.
Very well done to you.
And by the way, I am based in Lagos, Nigeria. just relocated after almost 20 years in the UK.
Check out how I am coping with life – such hilarious encounters, almost far fetched. Come check yourself at
http://babajidesalu.wordpress.com
Cheers
For an “educated” person, you fall into the pitfall of not understanding thermodynamics rather easily. I’m a physicist myself. I can safely say that, given the list of sciences you supposedly have studied, you know very little of either as I seriously doubt you spent 30 years in college.
In any case, to correct some of your misconceptions of thermodynamics, concider this article.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html