True Scientists Recognize The Source Of Science

[media=https://youtu.be/RY8uDhaLJnk]

Of Coarse, the true source of science is the one true God. Some believe otherwise even though the evidence doesn't give testimony to their belief. These debates, if you can call them debates, are meant to find out what's right and not who's right. Who's right are for arguments which I've learned to steer from since they're senseless, worthless, and never really get at the Truth of what is right. I'm here to present of what God says about science and other human affairs and to set the facts straight. The opposing team, however, has yet to provide any kind of support for what they think is true; some try to get into those senseless arguments that I've pointed out earlier. Whatever their reason is, we'll never know. Enjoy the video.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

DanielsASJ · 36-40, M

Earth happens to be there one in a trillion planets by luck or shall I say probability. The atmosphere of Earth is also a probability / By luck. How lucky are we people = 1/hunderd trillionth and yet our luck is outshining everything.

Looks like lucknis also biased to give Earth a fully developed living system out of so many. On top of that, many asteroids come and go, They kept striking the moon but the same luck of Atheists saves us from asteroid attacks. Otherwise it was so easy for any other planet getting disintegrated by its volcanoes and fall towards the Earth. But somehow That luck does not want to impact Earth.

In short, Atheists know nothing and they will just keep claiming Earth as a combination of probabilities going so strong. This makes Atheists a good comic character.

View 58 more replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

@DanielsASJ Asks specifically

WHO ACTUALLY FORMS/FORMULATES THESE LAWS?

Answer: Nobody. No person, no being, no spirit, no ghost. Not Osiris, Not Manitou, Not Odin, none of the above.

If you're willing to listen to a science lesson, I can explain to you how most of the events of the universe happen WITHOUT CAUSE. That's the nature of quantum mechanics - effects without cause - true fundamental randomness. Oh, and if you really wanted to understand gravity (or really the curvature of spacetime), you'd have to understand the Higgs boson. Sorry that math is beyond me, I can't help you with it.

Physics is probabilistic in nature, and the probability distributions become small for many macroscopic processes, but at the lowest level, cause and effect is mostly lost in the random noise.

For example, particles randomly appear out of nowhere, with zero initial energy and no event to cause the appearance. They show up in pairs, particle + antiparticle, and they usually annihilate each other, but the events are detectable after the fact - look up virtual pair production AKA vacuum fluctuation.

When energy interacts with matter, say a photon hitting an atom, there's a large random component to the interaction. No, it's not the result of poor measurements or unknown initial conditions, it's fundamental randomness. Lemme quote Feynman here:

We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible—that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward step, but no one has seen a way to avoid it.

Thus the "laws" of nature, gravity, speed of light, etc, are centers of probability distributions, not absolute fixed relationships.

So the answer to your question is nobody and nothing "causes" this stuff. At the lowest level, it happens in the form of effects without causes. And everything begins at the lowest level.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@DanielsASJ You don't have a topic

DanielsASJ · 36-40, M

@ElwoodBlues I will read you later on. I am working.

@newjaninev2 Because you know you have NO ANSWERS

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

yet to provide any kind of support for what they think is true

and what is that?

Aren't you asking me to provide evidential support for what I think is not true?

Gosh, we're going to be here for a very long time.

There are pink unicorns living in an ice-cave in the Mojave Desert... I think that's not true.

There is an elephant hiding in a left-luggage locker at Waterloo Station in London... I think that's not true.

(let me know when I get to the end of the list, OK?)