In Defence of Religion (in other words I post too much)
In parts, this isn't a defence of the story itself, but a rebuttal on Mr Ong's post. In parts, it's a defence of the story.
Posted on Mr Ong's blog:
Rebuttal 1.
One argument: Some people have seen that God exists.
Another argument: The CAT scan does not prove that the professor has a brain anyway. We do not SEE the brain. We only see an image. Like paintings. All because you paint a picture of a fluffy-elephant-donkey doesn't mean it exists. We see pictures of Krishna and Vishnu and so on. Does that prove they exist? The CAT scan might very well just show a lump of brain-sized plasticine in there. (This is a weak argument. I'll improve on it when I don't have a headache)
Defence 1. Also, the student probably just used that idea to rebut the professor, and the story ends (or my version of it) with "The Christian sits down". The professor could have rebutted.
Defence 2. "lots of heat", if you meant in that way, doesn't mean types of heat. It is a lot of heat. But yeah, I have absolutely no idea what white heat is. And besides, I don't think this had anything to do with physical heat. The student said "absence of heat". That would mean absence of transfer of energy. And he acknowledged that heat IS energy.
Defence and Rebuttal 3. You say total darkness cannot be obtained by our technology, yes? The student never said anything to rebut that. That means darkness would not be made darker, as you said. It would be something that is NOT darker made darker.
Defence and Rebuttal 4. See above. And besides, Satan is Satan and God is God. What does physics have to do with this?
Defence and Rebuttal 5. http://www.biblicist.org/bible/flood.shtml Read this.
Saturday, August 30, 2008 @ 10:20 pm.
In parts, this isn't a defence of the story itself, but a rebuttal on Mr Ong's post. In parts, it's a defence of the story.
Posted on Mr Ong's blog:
- To prove that the professor has a brain, nowadays we usually do a CT scan. Here is a CT scan image. There is no need to cut up any head to prove it. To think that this professor cannot think of this example perhaps goes to prove he has no brain after all.
- In physics, there is no such thing as physical heat. Heat is defined as the transfer of energy from one body to another due to temperature difference. In science, we do not have “lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, etc.”
- No light is not darkness, but it is only a low level of visible light. Light as you have studied is defined as an electromagnetic radiation. When visible light drops off, there is still infra-red and gamma radiation. You can make darkness darker by screening out more and more of the electromagnetic spectrum.
- Is it possible to reach zero temperature? I hope you have already learnt that it is not possible to reach zero kelvin as it is a theoretical limit, and not a physical one. Total darkness so as to say will only be possible when we reach zero temperature.
- Is it possible to prove evolution by looking? Looking for fossils is a good way.
Rebuttal 1.
One argument: Some people have seen that God exists.
Another argument: The CAT scan does not prove that the professor has a brain anyway. We do not SEE the brain. We only see an image. Like paintings. All because you paint a picture of a fluffy-elephant-donkey doesn't mean it exists. We see pictures of Krishna and Vishnu and so on. Does that prove they exist? The CAT scan might very well just show a lump of brain-sized plasticine in there. (This is a weak argument. I'll improve on it when I don't have a headache)
Defence 1. Also, the student probably just used that idea to rebut the professor, and the story ends (or my version of it) with "The Christian sits down". The professor could have rebutted.
Defence 2. "lots of heat", if you meant in that way, doesn't mean types of heat. It is a lot of heat. But yeah, I have absolutely no idea what white heat is. And besides, I don't think this had anything to do with physical heat. The student said "absence of heat". That would mean absence of transfer of energy. And he acknowledged that heat IS energy.
Defence and Rebuttal 3. You say total darkness cannot be obtained by our technology, yes? The student never said anything to rebut that. That means darkness would not be made darker, as you said. It would be something that is NOT darker made darker.
Defence and Rebuttal 4. See above. And besides, Satan is Satan and God is God. What does physics have to do with this?
Defence and Rebuttal 5. http://www.biblicist.org/bible/flood.shtml Read this.