Well, let me give a little bit of truth in terms of your own "religion"... Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. That points to some unknown source from where the matter that is us came from does it not?
Ever heard of the Theory of Relativity? E = mc^2? Energy = mass * speed of light ^2 Therefore, energy can be converted to mass and vice versa. Energy in massive amounts "exploded" and expanded (and still is expanding) to create masses (planets/moons) and balls of high energy gases (stars). Why is this feasible? The same thing happens to supernovas. Red Giants get so much energy that they exploded and form White Dwarfs.
Exactly, it's a theory. If you look at page 38, ssandeki asked me to provide him proof of a divine power responsible for creation. Theories are not proven so you cannot use a theory to argue against my point when I am not allowed to use theories or beliefs.
Theory, in scientific terms, means that I can be proven over and over again. What your thinking of is a hypothesis. How about Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation? So I can't use that to argue that gravity exists? Or does God push all objects towards the Earth? And here is a question for you... What is a fact?
They rely on this intentional misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. it has been explained to them over and over again but they don't listen because if they were to pay attention, take it on board and understand it it would prevent them saying "but evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory" as their defence.
Taken from Wikipedia: In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis. In the end, it doesn't matter what our varying opinions of what the word "theory" means. I think we can both agree that the word "proof" means you are 100% sure that what evidence you are speaking of is fact. So I ask you this, how can you be 100% sure that Energy = mass * speed of light ^2 when it has never been tested? You are fighting my proven fact that matter can't be created nor destroyed, with a formula that has never been tested. Not only is that against the rules that ssandeki gave me to prove creation by a divine force, that is an internal contradiction within this religion you call science. I find it hard to believe in a religion that internally contradicts itself on a regular basis.
Stox please don't interject on an argument when you don't even know what we're arguing about. If you would read my previous posts you would find I believe in the evolution of the human body, but not the human soul. We are currently arguing whether man was created by a divine power or through a scientific method. I know it's off the topic of the original post, but what thread in these forums doesn't get off topic at some point. By the way, even if your scientific theory can be proven over and over, there are times when the result of an experiment testing a theory is not the typical outcome...hence why it is a theory and not a law. That is why you cannot use a theory as proof, because it is not 100% certain.
There you go proving my point. Keyword is common usage. I'm talking from a scientific standpoint, not the village idiot definition. Merriam-Websters Dictionary: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> NOTE: wave theory of light was proven You keep thinking of theory as in "conspiracy theory". And its funny how you happened to skip the first part of the Wikipedia article and go straight to the second.... Lets get the first one in here as well shall we? Yes proof means 100% sure, but there is more proof towards evolution and Big Bang Theory than towards God. You want contradictions? Here is a list. Another note... Black Holes are a theory.. Do they exist? E=mc^2 proof? The atomic bomb. Small amount of unstable mass is converted into energy.
It doesn't matter how you explain the word theory, scientifically or "village idiot" version. The fact of the matter is, a theory is not proof. It is not 100% certain therefore you CANNOT use it as an argument against the Law of Conservation of Mass. You're trying to beat around the bush by scrambling things up about the meaning of the word theory. Fact of the matter is, it isn't proof so stop trying to argue the meaning with me and get back to the topic at hand. Are you kidding me? How can you have "more" proof if proof is 100% certain? I'm assuming you meant more evidence, and that would be your opinion. Back to my original comment... You wanted proof that a divine power created us. I told you the Law of Conservation of Mass does because if matter cannot be created, how did it come to be unless something unknown to us created it? It's your turn, give me proof that we weren't created by a divine power. I want PROOF, not theories.
The proof is in the evidence, The theory just explains it. Also your argument about "matter not being able to be created, so god done it" is completely non-sequitur. all someone has to do is present an alternate possible theory and your "proof of god" is blown out of the water. Well here you go, maybe the matter did already exist, Just not in our universe... What was that noise? Oh, It was the door hitting god on the ass as he left.
LEt me put it this way. A law describes what happens while a theory describes why it happens as it does. If you believe in the law of conservation of mass, then you must believe in the theory of relativity because it is partially derived from that (the rest is derived from another law). Yes. I meant evidence and not proof. I don't know if a divine power created all this. It could have, I just find it hard to believe. Reasons- Soooooo much details. Person>>Skin>>Muscle>>Nerves>>Nuerons>>Axons>>Neurotransmitters>>atoms>>electrons>>quarks>>on and on... What is the point of this? Why create all those planets that are irrelevant to us? What is the meaning of life? Scientists had an experiment where they mimicked EXTREMELY harsh conditions (similar to those at the creation of earth) and were able to create living organisms from nothing... Over a couple million years, I'm sure they would be able to evolve into more advanced creatures. Also, showing that something is false (which you did not) does not prove that something else is right. The creation of earth is not a boolean expression. If you say the Earth wasn't created by the Big Bang Theory, that doesn't mean that God created it. Give something pro God, not anti-science. I explained that THERE WAS NO MASS before the big bang, just energy.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-16186.html This is an interesting discussion you might fight interesting indeed.
hey governor you sure use the word theory quite often. I don't think you're being straight. "The proof is in the evidence, the THEORY just explains it." I think it should be more like the theory ATTEMPTS to explain it. Otherwise it wouldn't be a theory
I think before anyone continues we should all read below... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Then we should be able to word our selves more correctly.
zomg... E = MC squared Energy = Mass x Speed of light squared Energy can be converted to mass and vice versa under extreme conditions. How many times shall I repeat myself?
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation I'm getting tired of covering the same ground with you primitives. Learn to read or stop posting.
The proof is in the evidence? What evidence? I'm still waiting for evidence supporting your belief that is 100% certain to be true. Also, I haven't been saying "matter not being able to be created, so god done it". You need to work on your distinctions because I have been clearly stating that because matter cannot be created, a divine power or something unknown to us has created it. Your comment about the matter being created in another universe proves nothing nor gets us anywhere in this argument. The matter still had to be created somehow, it doesn't matter where it came from. What created that matter that already existed? I don't know, but thus far you have yet to convince me it was from your scientific theories. I apologize Wyla if it seemed like I was saying my God created the matter, as I've been saying divine power or something unknown to us to avoid that problem. I don't know what else I can say to explain to you that your theory of E=mc^2 isn't proven. I watched a show on this very topic some time back and they also said that is possible to go into the future with that formula. That is clearly false since time is an outside variable. Let us look at creation in this equation shall we? Since you claim this equation is capable of creating matter in the context of the equation and we are talking about the creation of matter, the amount of mass at the start would have to be 0. We plug 0 in for m and multiply that times the speed of light and we get an answer of 0, or energy=0. Thus according to your equation, we cannot have energy without mass. Without energy, according to your equation, additional mass cannot be created. Your equation works when it is set-up how you want it to be, but doesn't work in its original form. Now do you see why that isn't a possibility for our creation?