Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Your right I defined the law of conservation of energy which leads into the first law of thermodynamics.

Regardless of what you call it. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Point remains.

---

The point doesn’t stand. You missed the fact that there is a loss of energy.

The energy necessary for work includes a quantitative loss of energy as well as a loss in energy usually dissipating in the form of heat into surrounding systems, which in turn gains entropy in the adjoining systems, which in turn gains entropy in surrounding sets of systems, and finally entropy increases throughout the entire universe of systems. Universal heat death is the result. Without input from the outside the universe cannot gain energy. Without God, the universe is never created.

Matter cannot create matter. Matter like energy can only decay. Thus, we return to my original statement; empirical evidence shows the existence of God in the first cause/motion; universal perfection/order; and exists outside the material universe. Thus God exists, and God created heaven and earth.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

That is a lie, and you know it!! The current discussion is precisely accordingly to what was stated in the topic starting question.

---

Anyone can clearly read the OP at the bottom of each page, so your attempts to claim otherwise won't work.

Quote:

---

Till next time : I'm going to a Mensa meeting tonight !

---

Are you going to tell them about your "west pointing compass" :D :D :D :D :D :D

Mass/energy are two sides of the same coin.
Which as far as we know has always existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Mass/energy are two sides of the same coin.

---

The point is energy and mass are two different things, and that the amount of either mass or energy may and will vary constantly, but the total of the combination of mass and energy in the universe remains constant. The belief that the amount of energy in the universe never changes was known to be error back before either you or I was alive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At one time, scientists thought that the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy were two distinct laws. In the early part of the twentieth century, however, German-born American physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) demonstrated that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. He showed that matter can change into energy and that energy can change into matter. Einstein's discovery required a restatement of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. In some instances, a tiny bit of matter can be created or destroyed in a change. The quantity is too small to be measured by ordinary balances, but it still amounts to something. Similarly, a small amount of energy can be created or destroyed in a change. But, the total amount of matter PLUS energy before and after a change still remains constant. This statement is now accepted as the law of conservation of mass and energy.
(Source: http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ci-C...tion-Laws.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Which as far as we know has always existed.

---

Man's direct knowledge goes back only so far as we could measure the amount of mass + energy, which is in reality no more than several decades. At best if you argue that it goes back as far as man has observed nature, that may takes us back a few thousand years. Your sampling is therefore inadequate to justify that matter and energy has always existed.

Energy is not matter. Energy is not a physical thing.

Energy is a scalar attribute of matter usually used to describe work or generated heat. It takes several forms depending on the matter being disucssed, including kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound energy, light energy, elastic.

You cannot say that energy turns into a rock any more that you can say a 6 pound mass turns into a rock.

Come to think of it, you can say that a man named Simon turned into a Rock becoming the first authoritative head and foundation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church

JoeT

So lets get this straight from TJ3's posts

Quote:

---

If mass were energy, then it would be E=M.

---

Quote:

---

In the early part of the twentieth century, however, German-born American physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) demonstrated that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.

---

First you say they aren't the same thing then you say they are. Since you latest post agrees with me that they are the same thing. Are we settled on that?

As for the second part where you say that our knowledge of energy/matter not being created or destroyed is limited. I already said I agree however that it is still pure speculation to say that before the big bang energy/matter did not exist and speculation is not evidence. Until we have evidence to the contrary physics would dictate that energy/matter exist forever.

So in summery energy/matter same thing different forms. Saying that god had to form energy/matter pure speculation because we do not know what the conditions were before the big bang. It could just as easily be explain in a number of natural ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

So lets get this straight from TJ3's posts
First you say they aren't the same thing then you say they are. Since you latest post agrees with me that they are the same thing. Are we settled on that?

---

This is where most problems in understanding come from. Someone grabs one phrase or sentence out of context, ignores the rest and then says - "see?"

The sentences that follow the one that yopu took out of context explain what is meant and disagree entirely with your claims:

"He showed that matter can change into energy and that energy can change into matter. Einstein's discovery required a restatement of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. In some instances, a tiny bit of matter can be created or destroyed in a change. The quantity is too small to be measured by ordinary balances, but it still amounts to something. Similarly, a small amount of energy can be created or destroyed in a change. But, the total amount of matter PLUS energy before and after a change still remains constant."

And you once were making demeaning comments about others on here not understanding science. This is such a basic and well understood principle of science that it is taught in grade schools. How you have come this far without having become aware of this is beyond me.

Quote:

---

As for the second part where you say that our knowledge of energy/matter not being created or destroyed is limited. I already said I agree however that it is still pure speculation to say that before the big bang energy/matter did not exist and speculation is not evidence.

---

Once again, you might want to examine what evidence there is - or rather is not.

Quote:

---

Until we have evidence to the contrary physics would dictate that energy/matter exist forever.

---

I got a laugh out of this. In one line you said "speculation is not evidence" and in the next sentence you tell me that in the absence of evidence, we should believe that for which no evidence exists. That is worse than speculation, and is most assuredly not science.

Still way off base TJ3...
Matter and energy are the same thing. What Einstein is referring to is the change of matter to energy and energy to matter. Nothing is lost, it's only been changed. Still equates to the total amount of energy that is available today was around for the big bang and probably forever.

Quote:

---

I got a laugh out of this. In one line you said "speculation is not evidence" and in the next sentence you tell me that in the absence of evidence, we should believe that for which no evidence exists. That is worse than speculation, and is most assuredly not science.

---

Physics does currently dictate that energy/matter can not be created or destroyed the level remains the same. So this isn't speculation this is based on evidence. So until we have evidence to the contrary. When we discuss what might be we should use the knowledge we have. That is how science works. If we didn't we could just assume all things in science are wrong and make up anything we wanted because we could just say we don't know for certain if that's true or not. What you are suggesting is absurd.

So still no evidence of god unless your god is energy.

So to recap no evidence for god in chemistry, biology and physics. Any other subject you might want to bring up to try and prove god?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Still way off base TJ3....
Matter and energy are the same thing.

---

Eath to Michael!, Eath to Michael...!


Repeat: matter and energy is not the same thing in different forms or different states. Energy is nothing more than a scalar (measurable-having magnitude but no direction) attributes of matter.

When is the last time you saw energy turn into an apple, a falling apple, an apple about to fall?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Eath to Michael!, Eath to Michael...!


Repeat: matter and energy is not the same thing in different forms or different states. Energy is nothing more than a scalar (measurable-having magnitude but no direction) attributes of matter.

When is the last time you saw energy turn into an apple, a falling apple, an apple about to fall?

JoeT

---

So what's a photon? It doesn't have a mass (strictly, a rest mass, which is what you are talking about here), but does have energy...

Mass is, put simply, a form of energy, you can create pure energy from annihilation reactions (say an electron and positron colliding), and the amount of energy is perfectly predicted by special relativity. ()

Also, when Tj3 talks about there always being a loss of energy - this is not true. There is only a loss of useful energy. There will always be energy lost from a system through heat production or sound production or friction, but this energy is not destroyed, it is simply not useful to use and thus decreases the efficiancy of the system.

Please stop spewing about things you don't understand. You're only spreading the ignorance and making it difficult to clean up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

So what's a photon? It doesn't have a mass (strictly, a rest mass, which is what you are talking about here), but does have energy...

Mass is, put simply, a form of energy, you can create pure energy from annihilation reactions (say an electron and positron colliding), and the amount of energy is perfectly predicted by special relativity. ()

Also, when Tj3 talks about there always being a loss of energy - this is not true. There is only a loss of useful energy. There will always be energy lost from a system through heat production or sound production or friction, but this energy is not destroyed, it is simply not useful to use and thus decreases the efficiancy of the system.

Please stop spewing about things you don't understand. You're only spreading the ignorance and making it difficult to clean up.

---

See the following: Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

See the following: Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Thanks, that cleans it up well. You'll see that it also refutes your point.

Joe your article is correct but it is missing the next part here is the rest that goes more into more detail of what we are discussing

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically
The concept of mass–energy equivalence unites the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, allowing rest mass to be converted to forms of active energy (such as kinetic energy, heat, or light) while still retaining mass. Conversely, active energy in the form of kinetic energy or radiation can be converted to particles which have rest mass. The total amount of mass/energy in a closed system (as seen by a single observer) remains constant because energy cannot be created or destroyed and, in all of its forms, trapped energy exhibits mass. In relativity, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, and neither one appears without the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Thanks, that cleans it up well. You'll see that it also refutes your point.

---

While there may be a mass–energy comparative equivalence, it remains that energy is a measured quantity of an attribute of mass. Energy can be converted to other forms of energy, but there is no conversion of energy to mass. This is exactly what Michael's reference says, you can confirm the mass, by the energy. It doesn't say energy converts to mass. (Beam me up Scotty!)


There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. —The Feynman Lectures on Physics (My emphasis) Source

JoeT

I think what your missing is that mass is a state of energy and that mass energy can be transferred to other states of energy such as light or heat.

Which means you can take an apple and convert it directly into heat or light. Then technically convert it back again. This conversion is the bases for E=MC2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I think what your missing is that mass is a state of energy and that mass energy can be transferred to other states of energy such as light or heat.

Which means you can take an apple and convert it directly into heat or light. Then technically convert it back again. This conversion is the bases for E=MC2

---

Let me try to make myself clearer. You can change inertia mass or gravatational mass in an existing object, but energy canot produce matter.

As I said - beam me up Scotty

When is the last time you've seen energy change into an apple?


JoeT

Guys,

I got to admit all this energy, iertia mass and gravatational mass is over my head.

BUT... I still say that there is a God and he himself says you should be able to look around and know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

energy canot produce matter.

---

Yes it can, and does, such as in pair production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

While there may be a mass–energy comparative equivalence, it remains that energy is a measured quantity of an attribute of mass. Energy can be converted to other forms of energy, but there is no conversion of energy to mass. This is exactly what Michael's reference says, you can confirm the mass, by the energy. It dosn't say energy converts to mass. (Beam me up Scotty!)

---

So again I ask you, what is a photon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

...Are you going to tell them about your "west pointing compass" ...

---

Well : as you well know I proved you wrong when I stated that although a compass normally points "somewhere" northwards, there is quite an area on earth where that is NOT so.

That correct functioning compasses in that area can point southwards, westwards, etc. but not northwards.

All you do is show your frustrations by trying to bring this dead horse to life again with your lies !!!

:D :rolleyes: :p :) :rolleyes: :D

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

So again I ask you, what is a photon?

---

Quantum physics is outside my expertise. This is the best I can do for photon and represents the limits of my understanding of particle physics. “In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for 'light energy' or electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including in decreasing order of energy, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves.” Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As I understand it, its rest mass is zero. I’m grouping here but its relativistic mass may be relatively high given its high speed. If I’m correct, it’s still matter.

Based on a brief reading of Wikipedia it still appears that the pair produced by bombarding a nucleus (matter) with a photon to produce an electron and a positron. So, I don’t see this as production of matter directly from energy.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Quantum physics is outside my expertise. This is the best I can do for photon and represents the limits of my understanding of particle physics. “In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for 'light energy' or electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including in decreasing order of energy, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves.” Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As I understand it, its rest mass is zero. I'm grouping here but its relativistic mass may be relatively high given its high speed. If I'm correct, it's still matter.

Based on a brief reading of Wikipedia it still appears that the pair produced by bombarding a nucleus (matter) with a photon to produce an electron and a positron. So, I don't see this as production of matter directly from energy.

JoeT

---

A photon is not matter, it has 0 mass.

In pair production the nucleus does not lose any mass - it is simply needed for conservation of momentum. The pure energy of the photon creates particles with mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

A photon is not matter, it has 0 mass.

In pair production the nucleus does not lose any mass - it is simply needed for conservation of momentum. The pure energy of the photon creates particles with mass.

---

Ok I'll accept that only because I don't have the knowledge to argue otherwise. So, make an apple with a photon.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Ok I'll accept that only because I don't have the knowledge to argue otherwise. So, make an apple with a photon.

JoeT

---

Edit: Sorry I made a mess up of the math, I meant you supply the 27PJ photon first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Edit: Sorry I made a mess up of the math, I meant you supply the 27PJ photon first.

---

So, that’s the best you can do for sending me a rotten apple!

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Still way off base TJ3....
Matter and energy are the same thing.

---

So you oppose science, and now you are telling us what you believe by faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Well : as you well know I proved you wrong when I stated that although a compass normally points "somewhere" northwards, there is quite an area on earth where that is NOT so.

---

Cred,

In your own mind you may believe that magnetic compasses based in Israel point west, but that is something that you hold by faith, but it is certainly not science.

That correct functioning compasses in that area can point southwards, westwards, etc. but not northwards.

That is where a lot of disagreements on here originate with you - you can never admit that you are wrong even when everyone starting from children in grade in grade one know better about where compasses point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Quantum physics is outside my expertise. This is the best I can do for photon and represents the limits of my understanding of particle physics. “In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for 'light energy' or electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including in decreasing order of energy, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves.” Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As I understand it, its rest mass is zero. I'm grouping here but its relativistic mass may be relatively high given its high speed. If I'm correct, it's still matter.

---

Joe,

These guys are just trying to play games by asking a question that no one has answered as of yet. A photon has not been isolated. It is simply a concept given to try to to explain how electromagnetic energy works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Cred,

In your own mind you may believe that magnetic compasses based in Israel point west, but that is something that you hold by faith, but it is certainly not science.

That correct functioning compasses in that area can point southwards, westwards, etc., but not northwards.

That is where a lot of disagreements on here originate with you - you can never admit that you are wrong even when everyone starting from children in grade in grade one know better about where compasses point.

---

It doesn’t matter much. The point is, and our friends know it, is that matter cannot create itself, and that energy cannot create matter; all of which gets backs to St. Thomas's five postulates for proofs of God’s existence.

Actually, it was kind of fun. I had to reach back 40 years – and of course a lot of the science has changed since then. Come to think of it, I don’t think they had photons back then.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

It doesn’t matter much. The point is, and our friends know it, is that matter cannot create itself, and that energy cannot create matter; all of which gets backs to St. Thomas's five postulates for proofs of God’s existence.

Actually, it was kind of fun. I had to reach back 40 years – and of course a lot has the science has changed since then.

JoeT

---

Quite right and you made some good points in the discussion.

The fact that the relationship between matter and energy is defined by E=MC squared proves by itself that matter and energy are not the same thing. This has never been taught by science.

I find it fascinating that the atheists on here claim to use facts and science, and yet the science has consistently been on the side of the Christians on here.

Quote:

---

So you oppose science, and now you are telling us what you believe by faith.

---

No I am right in line with today's accepted science you just don't understand it. Which doesn't surprise me if you are sure god did something why waste the time studying what other people say when you know god did it.

Quote:

---

These guys are just trying to play games by asking a question that no one has answered as of yet.

---

If I had an irony censor it would have over loaded on this post from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

No I am right in line with today's accepted science you just don't understand it.

---

Like when scientists say that matter and energy are not the same thing, you say that I don't understand that they mean to say that they are? :D

You are right. I don't understand how you manage to turn around what scientist say. You accept on faith that you are right when the percentage of scientists who say that energy and matter are not the same thing dramatically exceeds those who believe in evolution. And yet you accept evolution and your belief that matter is energy on faith.

That is neither scientific nor consistent.

Why do you both have such problems with
E=MC²
but it is also
M=E/C²
What you are missing is E is pure energy not heat energy not light energy. E is an abstract concept. M is mass which is simply a state of energy. Just as light and heat are. c2 is the conversion factor required to convert from units of mass to units of energy.
You are basically arguing that 1liter doesn't equal 1000mililiters because 1 and 1000 aren't the same thing.

All of this is widely accepted and just like evolution you not understanding it won't make it go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Why do you both have such problems with
E=MC²
but it is also
M=E/C²

---

It seems to me that you are the one having problems with it. You are telling us that it should be E=M

Quote:

---

What you are missing is E is pure energy not heat energy not light energy. E is an abstract concept.

---

No, energy is something that can in fact be measured.

Quote:

---

M is mass which is simply a state of energy.

---

In your belief system. If that were true then we would not have a conversion between mass and energy, because they would be one and the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

if you are sure god did something why waste the time studying what other people say when you know god did it.

---

You might recall that we believe that God created the heavens and the earth in perfect order. To the Christian, science is a way to explore how that perfect order of nature works. Science isn’t the purview of those who don’t believe in God.

You do remember Copernicus, the guy that got Galileo in trouble? He was a mathematician, astronomer, physician, classical scholar, translator, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat, economist and (now get this) a Catholic cleric.
You see, Catholic believe all truth, even natural science is worthy knowledge. But that was only one. Well, then of course there are the following notable Catholic scientists:

List of Jesuit scientists

François d'Aguilon
Alexius Sylvius Polonus
Armand David
Giuseppe Asclepi
Joseph Bayma
Mario Bettinus
Giuseppe Biancani
Roger Joseph Boscovich
Louis-Ovide Brunet
Nicholas Callan
Jean Baptiste Carnoy
Nicolaus Copernicus
James Cullen (mathematician)
Adelir Antonio de Carli
Jan Dzierżon
Jean-Charles de la Faille
Gyula Fényi
José Gabriel Funes
Agostino Gemelli
George Coyne
Bartolomeu de Gusmão
Michał Heller
Victor-Alphonse Huard
Ányos Jedlik
Georg Joseph Kamel
Otto Kippes
Georges Lemaître
Pierre Macq
Marcin of Urzędów
Marie-Victorin
Gregor Mendel
Jozef Murgaš
Julius Nieuwland
Paul McNally
Léon Abel Provancher
George Schoener
Gaspar Schott
George Mary Searle
Angelo Secchi
Guseppe Toaldo
Julian Tenison Woods
Giuseppe Zamboni
Francesco Zantedeschi
Category:Roman Catholic scientist-clerics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But what do the superstitious know, right?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Why do you both have such problems with
E=MC²
but it is also
M=E/C²
What you are missing is E is pure energy not heat energy not light energy. E is an abstract concept. M is mass which is simply a state of energy. Just as light and heat are. c2 is the conversion factor required to convert from units of mass to units of energy.
You are basically arguing that 1liter doesn't equal 1000mililiters because 1 and 1000 aren't the same thing.

All of this is widely accepted and just like evolution you not understanding it won't make it go away.

---

I don't have a problem with it, none what so ever. The problem is that it isn’t proof of “first cause/mover.”

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Below I repost a list by Tom, one of the posters on this board who argued that this list shows proof for "God's" existence. Although I am tolerant towards any belief a person can have, I draw a clear line between what a person BELIEVES and what is covered by OSE.

Another point is that support queries for one specific view do not mean that - even without any OSE for another view - that other view is automatically "factual". Each claim has to be OSE proved on it's own merits.

I have a link to another Q&A board to show that this list is a "true" copy, but I am not allowed to post that link here. If you want the URL PM me, and I will forward you the link.

Here is Toms list of claims :

"Blindness is no excuse".

As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In each and every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that each and every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are layed down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
---
If you cannot provide a plausible answer, or if you respond with abuse, then that is as good as an admission that you know that God exists, but canniot bring yourself to admit the truth. I look forward to your response. Tom

Well, that was the list. An interesting list with queries on evolution. Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions.

"If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists", Toms stated. But that is of course nonsense. Who decides if there was no other possible mean? Even if at this moment we do not know such mean, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

"For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God". Again : who decides if there was no natural answer? Even if at this moment we do not know such answer, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

"And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted".
There is a saying : A fool can ask more questions than all wise men can answer ....

A list on evolution queries is no OSE for "God's" existence. Why not post direct OSE for "God's" existence? The answer is simple : because such evidence does not exist. You can only BELIEVE in "God's" existence.

Whatever you can post on queries on whatever subject, it will never be OSE for "God's" existence. Only direct OSE for "God's" existence will be.

Any comments ?

:)

.

.

---

Cred:

Tj3 and Joe have given evidence that evolution is not factual. Read through 40 pages and the links.

Now, that may not be OSE to you, but why does it seem to irritate you that evolution is not factual? Or that there are those of us that demand the same OSE of evolution?

What do you, Cred, have as OSE of the origins of life and why we are here?

THe fact is people do believe in God and the vast majority of those that don't believe in evolution. It is fair to ask for OSE of both. Now if you subscribe to a different theory, like extraterrestrial intelligence, where is your OSE?


You discounted a theologic / Catholic evidence of God's existence because it was written by man. Well everything that you know is by man - do you have to OSE for everything a fallible human does?


As to the physics and chemistry - why are there the "laws of nature?" Who created these laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Cred: Tj3 and Joe have given evidence that evolution is not factual. Read through 40 pages and the links.
Now, that may not be OSE to you, but why does it seem to irritate you that evolution is not factual? Or that there are those of us that demand the same OSE of evolution?

---

Inthebox : you suggest that there is OSE for these queries on evolution. But I see no OSE. Just queries. And people who are willing and trying to answer these queries (although this is not the evolution board, where that should be done).

And even if there ever was OSE for these evolution queries, THAT IS NOT OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" !!!

The only thing that can be accepted as OSE for the existence of "God" is DIRECT OSE for the existence of "God".
Not Subjective Suggested Evidence (SSE).
Subjective refers to interpretation. Objective refers to factual.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

It doesn't matter much. The point is, and our friends know it, is that matter cannot create itself, and that energy cannot create matter....

---

Energy and matter are one and the same. They are different appearances of one and the same. In the universe that can be seen everywhere. Matter appears out of - and disappears into - energy.

Energy can create matter. And matter can create energy (any nuclear explosion proves that ). In this process "create" refers to conversion.
As to energy : the universe is loaded with energy. Every cubicle micron of space is loaded with energy. That does not mean that every format of energy is usuable energy (as many here seem to interpret energy).

But that has nothing to do with (this topic : ) Objective Supported Evidence for the existence of "God".

:rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

But that has nothing to do with (this topic : ) Objective Supported Evidence for the existence of "God".

---

Thanks for this: If anyone wants to correct the gaps in their knowledge of relativity or any other physics topic, please come to the physics board, we'd be glad to explain it :)