Formal+essay+2

 || **The True Creator ** || ||  ||  **//Science vs. Religion //** **1/16/2006** || || **Kyler kane**  ||






 * Before cities, electricity, civilizations, man and even, time; our universe has had two constant theories for why everything we know today is the way it is.**
 * Many say God created man and helped shape our world. They argue that if god made man, he must have created the universe that surrounds man. However others say that science is the fundamental key to explaining life. Some people argue that only science can explain why we are, and how we came to be. Although neither have a true answer as of now, both have enough evidence to sway a newcomer’s opinion and choice of which to believe full heartedly into. This is not to say a scientist cannot pray and thank god, or that a priest disagrees with the thought of gravity. The reason these two theories controversy is simple; Fear.**
 * Back before Newton and Tesla, there was no such thing as science. People in fact went as far as to believe in spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation being the “theory” that life could be created from none living things. People would have gone forever thinking that a rock could create the beetles and insects just because once it was lifted the insects were there. Science was the key to unraveling this mystery. Had science not stepped in religion would have left it at, “God created it” and it would have been left at that. Religion could never explain these types of phenomena’s. Religion as a whole only depicts morals; it is incapable of ever answering questions.**
 * Religions inability to answer questions has become religion’s greatest problem. When someone who is purely religious hears anything contradicting to god and all that he has done, they take offense. This is where the problem with science comes in. If you look into what science you will see that the information that comes revolves around life and creation. This creates a rift between religion and science for creation and life are one of religions most prized points because they are essentially the only “answered” part the bible offers. So when these two “answers” get into the scope of science; they clash. A prime example of this struggle for the truth came from the Town of Cobb County in Atlanta. On their school biology texts books this message was placed,** **“//This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.//” Due to the fact that there are only “two theories” for life, if one is ruled out then one can easily infer the other is the answer. In the case of note, religion is the obvious winner of how man came to be. This is entirely wrong; people who put this message in are die hard religionists. They cannot grasp their bible being wrong because they are afraid to admit to the unknown. And this is where fear sets in for most people.**
 * So if we take a deeper look into evolution we can just see how different they are from the bible’s version. Of course with science comes a lot of strange behavior, particles in today’s life differed from particles in lets say 4100Ma. (Ma: means million years ago) That is the beauty of science however. Science is always changing but always evolving. Ironically although spontaneous generation has be completely ruled out, it has not always been this way. If we take a look at circa 4500ma and 3500ma you will see that a form of spontaneous generation did occur. This was called abiogenesis, which is in fact life forming from none living things. However the reason this theory is accepted is because during this era the surrounding details of life were so drastically different. Although the particles did not create things like insects out of thin air they did do something unfathomable, in this case; RNA molecules were self reproducing. RNA is commonly known as ribonucleic acid. This is the precursor to DNA. So to break down what all this means into a more simplistic way, we have the beginning structure of DNA multiplying drastically, Out of nothing is coming life. Yet the bible does say that Adam was created from the dust of the earth, which in a sense one could now say in an extremely optimistic way; yes. However the reasoning behind //why// he was created is what throws religion against science. In Catholicism God created man, in science this duplication of RNA molecules has been the reason for life. Fear again sets in because religions savior is being taken out of the picture. So knowing that life can come from nothing means maybe there is a chance God did create Adam?**
 * No, and to prove against this religious view of dust creating Adam, we now need to move ahead to circa 3900-2500ma. This time period was just before the world underwent one of its most drastic and literally life altering stages. The planet was almost completely desolate, this is including the oceans. It was because the oceans boiled away, creating a heavy thick atmosphere and the complete lack of oxygen that gave birth to** [|**chemoautotroph**]**. These have been said to resemble prokaryotes. These organisms are normally depicted to live in conditions that earth underwent after the meteors hit. The name Chemoautotroph fits this organism because Chem. is referring to Chemical, autotrophy means that the organism self nourishes from either photosynthesis or Chemosynthesis. Both of these ways would have been perfect due to the conditions then and later to come. So if the “dust” created Adam firstly it was far to soon for him to be walking on the earth. Secondly had he been there during that phase of evolution he would have been wiped out.**
 * So this now tells us the bible holds a lot of opposition to science. If we research into day of Genesis we can see that a fallacy came per day. God was said to have made the earth in six days. This leaves room for a lot of fallacies. Let us look at his fourth day for example, “And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.” (**[|**http://niv.scripturetext.com/genesis/1.htm**]**) I choose this particular day because it was the fourth day that he did so much. We can note that it says he that he created the sun and moon. Yet from what we can tell today The Big Bang has been the creator of these things. We know the temperature of the sun to the chemical makeup. We can predict solar flares and even say how long it has been around. We can estimate when it will even burn out. Just the fact alone that the sun can burn out makes me wonder why God would create a deathtrap. Although the sun will not burn out for an extremely long time, still leaves wonder why one who was so good with what he made would create something essential and take it away. The moon is important as well, the moon controls our tides, if the moon were to get to far away, and the oceans would go out of control. This again leaves us with the same questions. To what answer does the bible give for these? None.**
 * Science on the other hand is working to understand how and why for all of these things. Although we do not have the technology to prevent or plan for these disasters, we are still looking into them. This is a main reason why religion holds no ground in any argument from how things were made to why.**
 * Before man walked the earth, before planets took their form, there one thing; a bang.**
 * God was said to have made the planets, the stars and everything else to revolve around the earth. Earth is where he created people in his image. Yet basic science shows that not only does the universe not revolve around us, but we revolve around it. The biggest missing key with the bible however is when in those six days did god create the universe and for what purpose?**
 * This is a tale the bible will never be able to encompass. Yet the universe its self is giving us clues as to where and how it began. Although the information is not obvious, there are ways to find out the details. The original theory of the Big Bang was proposed by a physicist by the name of Georges Lemaître. Although he was not essentially known what he was onto, he created a different look that has been renovated to fit into the theory we know today. The theory incorporates a lot of the most fundamental theoretical as well as proven physical attributes the world knows. Einstein’s theory of general relativity is incorporated based on the fact that space time was an important key for the big bang. This is important to think about because this theory of space time correlates with the four momentums.**
 * The general theory however for the big bang can be simplified very easily however. Think about a mountainous ball of heat and gas, the slightest chemical shift could cause this to erupt. This eruption was not the sole cause of our planets however. According to Newton’s Second Law, “Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction” (**[|**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion**]**) This is saying that every force has an equal and opposite force. The best way to understand this is to think of a bar magnet. You have two sides, (+) (-) sides of the magnets will attract. (+) (+) will repel, because if one said can attract then the other side no matter what must repel. So in this “explosion” in the universe we have tiny particles known as quark–gluon plasma. Although this sounds like a complicated particle, it’s very basic. If we break down the name it will make more sense as to what was happening in the universe during this time. A quark is the building block of matter. Quarks are what they call a composite particle; all that composite means is that the quarks like to be paired up at all times. (Just think about a composite rock you might find outside) Yet when these quarks are paired they are known as hadrons. The most common ones know today would be protons and neutrons. Since we know Quarks are the building block of matter and they form to create protons and neutrons we can see that the next part of the name gluon does just that. A gluon is the force that holds these protons and electrons within the nuclei. Lastly Plasma is what is known as the fourth element, the other three being gas, solids and, liquids. Plasma is partly ionized gas. Due primarily to the ionization of plasma makes it a magnet for things such a protons and neutrons. Thus we have a quark-gluon plasma particle. Now knowing the information about the first primary element after the big bang came the most interesting aspect, creation of matter. Since the big bang sent the universe into expansion all of these quarks were violently being thrown around. Due to their charges for ever positive there would be a negative also known as anti-matter. Anti-matter was 1:1 with matter, yet this slowly changed. Although anti-matter still exists today, we can see that we obviously have matter. All of these clues are even today floating above, and within our everyday lives.**
 * If religion was the true creation of life then it would have elaborated more into the structure of life. I do not advocate that God doesn’t exist or that all of science is correct, but I am saying that Science is the true creator of the universe and all that is engulfed in it. Einstein once said, “Great ideas often encounter opposition from mediocre minds.” He could not have been more right. Science has given the best ideas but gets no praise.**