Bryan Fischer: Physicist

I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that Bryan Fischer doesn’t just rant ignorantly and hatefully about gay people and atheists, he’s also a scientist. You’re going to crack up at this diatribe about the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which he conflates with the 1st law, then doesn’t, then does again), which he says is found in the Bible.


"Please, don’t denigrate Jesus by inferring that the religious right is in any way influenced ..."

Trump Using Demagoguery to Defend Child ..."
"Isn’t it ironic that the president responsible for the lies that enabled the Iranian invasion, ..."

Trump Using Demagoguery to Defend Child ..."
"Yes, Trump’s base are that fucking stupid. Many working poor are desperately unhappy with their ..."

Trump Using Demagoguery to Defend Child ..."
"Yes, the policy of taking children from their parents if they illegally cross the border ..."

Trump Using Demagoguery to Defend Child ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    Bryan Fischer doesn’t just rant ignorantly and hatefully about gay people and atheists, he’s also a scientist rants ignorantly about science.

    You’re welcome.

  • Chiroptera

    I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that Bryan Fischer doesn’t just rant ignorantly and hatefully about gay people and atheists, he’s also a scientist.

    That’s the great thing about the Bible: when you read it, you become such a well-rounded person!

  • criticaldragon1177

    Ed Brayton

    I fail to see how Bryan came to the conclusion that this proves the bible. Not to mention that if his interpretation is correct, what does say about the after life? If everything is decaying and will eventually be destroyed, accept God, doesn’t that go against the idea of eternal salvation through Jesus?

  • unemployedphilosopher

    I listened to that, and now I feel like going to the store for a bottle of whiskey, so I can kill the brain cells that remember it. He is, to quote someone far cleverer than I, not even wrong.

  • First Law of Thermodynamics, First Commandment, First Amendment… What these things mean is irrelevant. What is important is what you want them to mean.

  • escuerd

    I also can’t help but notice the way he emphatically says “the second LAW of thermodynamics,” as if to emphasize that it’s known with great certainty. This indirectly plays into the popular misunderstanding and misuse of the term “theory”. Of course, the actual second law (not Fisher’s mangling of it) is pretty damn certain as far as it goes, but that has fuck all to do with the use of the term “law”.

    “…just like scientists are telling us today. They could have figured this out by reading Psalm 102.”

    This conclusion follows so obviously and naturally from this psalm that despite being part of one of the most widely read texts in the western world, no one managed to derive it until the 19th century (no doubt by a careful reading of scripture).

  • sc_89b14af992115cf6a4b7fae00b64476c

    “Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed”

    The first law states the total energy of an isolated system is conserved. It doesn’t and could not state that neither matter nor energy were being created or destroyed. Matter is created from energy, it is a form of energy. That is why particle accelerators are built.

    In standard cosmology the total energy of a system is still the old sum of potential energy and kinetic energy and the sum could be zero (in fact it was suspected a long time it was) when one of the terms is negative and low and behold one of the terms is negative due to gravity. And you can derive the Friedmann equation from this simple sum with all the types of matter and their densities in it’s terms, the total energy of the Universe still being zero.

    This together with the uncertainty principle applied to the relation between time and energy, which makes particles and their antiparticles (or vice versa) pop in and out of the vacuum as it were is in principle enough to make a Universe out of nothing.

    – Albert Bakker.

  • sc_89b14af992115cf6a4b7fae00b64476c

    *Lo and behold* another foreigner abusing the language. Sorry for that.

  • haitied

    I love when they get all “sciency” One of my favorites is WLC, In the same “debate” both attempting to discredit his opponent by saying they’re a philosophic layman because they don’t have a PHD in philosophy and going on about the 2nd law of thermodynamics despite being a scientific layman. . . .

  • I think that we should start a whispering campaign; one that says that gravity is the work of SATAN! Then we can watch the NatGeo special when Bryan Fischer goes to the edge of the Grand Canyon and despites SATAN’S creation by invoking the name of GOD as he dives into the canyon.

  • tiredofusernamerules

    My poor forehead.

  • mithandir

    escuerd @6 : In fact, it’s my understanding that in science a law describes an empirical observed phenomenon for which no counter-example exists, but without a universally accepted explanation about why this is. Thus we have Newton’s Law of gravity which with immense precision can predict the movement of non-quantum masses, but we don’t have a real understanding of why it is (yes, I know this is changing now with higgs bosons etc). We have a formula, but not its derivation. In that aspect a scientific theory could be considered stronger, because not only do we have a lot of data supporting it, we have a plausible mechanism.

    Of course, people who don’t follow science, don’t know the subtle linguistic differences.

  • francesc


    “non-quantum masses” at non-relativistic speeds and masses, as it happens also with Kepler’s laws. Basically we are saying that Newton’s Law of Gravity is merely an oversimplification, but for historical reasons we still call it a “Law”.

    I would say it’s simply wrong but physicists doesn’t tend to agree with me and certainly it works given a set of assumptions.

    Similarly, termodinamic’s laws work, given a non-realistic set of assumptions. To start with, you can’t build an isolated system, you can only aprox to it. Boyle’s laws? There is no such a thing as a perfect gas in reality. Not sure, but Ohm’s law probably doesn’t allow for some effects in superconductors. And the Rayleigh-Jeans Law (blackbody radiation) only approaches the Planck radiation formula we observe (as for know).

    I’m pretty sure that Maxwell’s laws are going to be eventually improved (if they have not already been overmatched).

    So, everything we called “law” in past centuries was wrong, as they were mathematically derived from formulas that work in a simplified version of reality. As we can observe reality better the simplified version normally doesn’t hold for too long.