Quote from: BADecker on December 24, 2017, 12:15:42 AM

Quote from: Astargath on December 23, 2017, 11:51:00 PM

Quote from: BADecker on December 23, 2017, 11:38:50 PM

Quote from: Astargath on December 23, 2017, 08:45:30 PM

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyN2RhbhiEU

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. Theres plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale youre looking at. Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

A theoretical scientist will like science theory better, because he gets paid for making theory. Anybody else might like science law better, because there is a solid understanding in science law.

Science theory can be refuted by other science theory. Science theory isn't as sound as science law.

I did want to thank you for your little video. It explains exactly the thing that I am talking about. A science theory is not known to be science fact. The video says it over and over, albeit in other words. Even though science theory may be set up with all kinds of facts arranged in a new way, that new arrangement is not known to be fact.

With regard to the scientific proof that God exists, combining the 3 scientific laws, cause and effect, complexity, and entropy, we see that there is no other way for these laws to exist other than something called God. If what you are trying to do is prove that these laws are faulty, this forum isn't really the place to do it.

What about Big Bang, you might say. Big Bang simply works with some of the mathematical laws of the universe, and with other scientific theories. It is not nearly complete, since it assumes evolution theory (maybe without even saying it, and among other theories), which is, again, contradictable. This leaves so many holes in BB theory with regard to reality, that BB theory is simply a play thing.

Since evolution theory has so many holes in it that is laughable, BB theory is entirely flawed and useless. Why? Because BB theory is depending on evolution theory to fill in a bunch of gaps regarding life. All this theorizing does is to make money for those who work with it, and to distract "laymen" from reality.

Play with science theory. But do not advertise it. It is a distraction from reality.

Cool

Except for how I debunked them. You ended up resorting to calling the universe a ''machine'' and that all ''machines'' have makers. How do you know all machines have makers?

In the same way that you don't know that there are machines that don't have makers.

However, in the vastness of the machine world, the evidence that all machines have makers is so great, that you would have a difficult time finding a machine without a maker.

I'll help you. There is that ancient Greek machine that turns out to be the oldest computer in the world - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html - that was found on an ancient Greek galleon. Just because it was found there, on a sunken Greek galleon, doesn't mean we know that it had a maker. But try to tell that to any scientist, and they will laugh you right into a funny farm.

Cool

This is the same argument as ''everything is designed'' which I already debunked. You told me to look for the definition of machine: ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Now if the universe can be a machine, then so can a volcano, for example. Now how do you know a volcano has a maker? We don't. We only know ''machines'' have makers because those makers are humans, all the machines that have makers are humans, that doesn't prove god or that all machines have makers, it only proves, in any case, that all machines have human makers.