Science Vs. Faith: That story that goes around...
    Loading
  • Videos
  • Music
  • New & Trending
  • Games
  • Community
  • Shop
  • Categories
Print Friendly and PDF Version

Science Vs. Faith: That story that goes around...

Here is one of those creationists stories they think proves God exists.
I constantly see this one around in forums and stuff, don't remember where I first read it but heres a link to the full story
I just made it a bit smaller to keep the main points.

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. ’Professor, is there such thing as heat?’


Its a subjective thing, liquid nitrogen boils at -200.00 °C . there is no object or thing or specific value called heat.
Your blood boils at around 100°C
Really, think about what he could possibly be asking.
"is there something you consider warm"
Well i consider anything that approaches my boiling temperature warm.



’And is there such a thing as cold?’

Same deal and what could he be possibly asking?
If there's a place where theres absolutely no thermodynamic reaction it wouldn't be called a "place"
So no there is no thing or place or specific value called "cold"
But i consider anything that approaches my freezing temperature cold.



’Yes, son, there’s cold too.’
’No sir, there isn’t.’


And they are both wrong by a factor of infinite.


’You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ’cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold;


Just because you think something could be infinite doesn't mean it can't exist.
By using the students own argument against evolution: you haven't been there and observed a process where something reached unlimited heat any more than you have observed something reach -458, or a place with no thermodynamic state.
So why are you biased to think one exists and not the other?
Thats the only thing that amazes me in this argument.


otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest (negative) -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.


Its the absolute opposite of that, every body or object IS energy and thats what makes heat.


Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.’


Cold is just a word to describe a subjective feeling, and so is heat.


’What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?’
’Yes, ’ the professor replies without hesitation. ’What is night if it isn’t darkness?’
’You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’


Light is not the center of our galaxy, darkness is. And it will keep getting darker.
Again dark and light are subjective things we use to describe the reflective energy in our visible spectrum, dark things are outside our spectrum but still exist.


’You are working on the premise of duality, ’ the student explains. ’You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’



But you’re the one working on a biased premise.
Have you ever observed anything in history with your own eyes?



The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.


’Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelled the professor’s brain?


I didn’t really think that was a neurosurgery class.


No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’


What demonstrable protocol says he has no brain?
You can demonstrate a brain without smelling or touching it.
Guessing whether the cat is in the box or not makes no difference for the cat.



’Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.

That makes god a gradient, and not a thing that exists.
If evil is the absence of God and evil doesn’t exist, then there is either no absence of God ( everything thats considered bad must be part of God 100%), or God doesn’t exist.


God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’


And thats where he completely lost it.