Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Science vs Religion - supporting evidence?

  1. Jan 1, 2005 #1
    This is a subject i'd like to become a lot more educated on. I've seen a lot of science vs religion discussions on various other forums, and a lot of religious fanatics making statements about the flaws in accepted scientific theory... a lot of which i'm skeptical about, but unfortunately i'm lacking the facts to make a decent counter argument.

    I realise it's an incredibly broad subject, but can someone point me to some good articles or books on the matter? Or if not, explain to me in fairly basic terms (I've just finished highschool having taken chemistry & physics) some supporting evidence for evolutionist theories, flaws in them, etc... i'd also be interested to hear supporting evidence for the existence of a god if there is any.

    Also, I'm intending to study science at university next year... which subjects should i take to find out the most on this matter?

    any comments or help with this would be greatly appreciated.


    sorry if this is in the wrong forum too, feel free to move it.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 1, 2005 #2

    iansmith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  4. Jan 1, 2005 #3
    Study physics and possibly chemistry, learn everything about the real basics. Refrain from studying archaeology or geology or environmental sciences. Why? Because there are several faulty paradigms that should be corrected. But if you study them, it becomes part of you and it will be very hard to let go of them ever again.

    Then, if thoroughly comfortable with the pure basics, look at the enigmas in the Earth science and then you may be able to evade the flawed theories and concentrate on the real issues.
     
  5. Jan 1, 2005 #4

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    not sure i understand why you claim that geology and earth sciences have flawed theories? can you be more specific?
     
  6. Jan 1, 2005 #5
    Most certainly, especialy pertaining the Quartenary era, or the ice ages.

    Choose a specialism:

    Paleoclimatology, oceanography, glaciology

    And how much detail/ proof do you want?

    One of the paradigms I don't doubt is Richard Muller's favorite quote of Josh Billings:

     
  7. Jan 1, 2005 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I was thinking the same thing - and since this was the earth sciences forum and a lot of the science vs religion debate centers around the age of the earth, I was going to suggest geology...

    Andre, the specific areas you listed there may be a litle thin, but every field of study has its thin spots - otherwise there would be nothing left to research!

    Further, I think its important to focus on the thin spots because that's where a young-earth creationist (YEC) would focus. For example, a lot is made of the supposed inaccuracy of carbon dating.
     
  8. Jan 1, 2005 #7
    Please let's keep it physical. Carbon dating is definitely sound but much more complicated then orginally assumed.

    It's just about flawed science and I call as witness the Benthic Stack of Berkeley this time. Please study it a little and especially this page:

    http://jlevine.lbl.gov/BenStackCompare.html

    If you're not blinded by the stunning correlation in the data and you have some thorough background in physics, ie, system response in higher order open loop systems, you should note a terrible problem here.
     
  9. Jan 2, 2005 #8
    ..... asked what to study if he wanted to investigate creationism versus evolution. I advised continuing physics and chemistry and avoid having to learn flawed theories as paradigms. So, predictably, I was challenged to expose some of them. I choose for the problems in the 100,000 "ice age" cycle starting with the Benthic stack, but there are lots more. But this all is way off thread. So I think I´ll open another one here Geology and Physics, the 100,000 cycle of the ice age. keeping this thread to the most fundamental discussion.
     
  10. Jan 13, 2005 #9
    I reckon you should just read a Richard Dawkins book. Almost any of them will do, but "The Blind Watchmaker" is his most complete treatise on the different facets of evolution, and many of the arguments against it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Science vs Religion - supporting evidence?
  1. Age of Earth, evidence (Replies: 15)

Loading...