The equation actually equates energy to matter.
Yes. That is what it is, manifestly.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The equation actually equates energy to matter.
The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again.How so? The magnetic field is obviously decaying, so what do they put forward?gg
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread or the other one ongoing, the "Big Bang" as theorized is not an explosion of matter/energy but an expansion of space.The Big Bang would apply to the first instance; there was no harness, so it would be impossible to create a well-ordered universe as the result of a massive exposion of energy.
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread or the other one ongoing, the "Big Bang" as theorized is not an explosion of matter/energy but an expansion of space.
Those textbooks are incorrect, or using metaphor.Bull. In text books it's called an explosion of matter, and energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtreIt's been so ever since it was theorized.
Because things compressed are very hot. They cool as they expand away from each other.And why do you think it's called the Big Bang?
The distance between 'things' is currently increasing over time. Things exist in space. As you and I also are 'things' that exist in 'space', we are part of that expansion, albeit on a much reduced scale compared to planets and galaxies. You are now microscopically further away from me than you were when I began this post --not enough to make a real difference.And what do you mean an expansion of space?
I adhere to Kent Hovind's position on Evolution: teach it in the schools as one alternative for where we came from
I say [evolution is] not science for several reasons: we have never observed or found sufficient evidence for: macro evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution, chemical evolution, and cosmic evolution. The only type of evolution we have ever observed is Micro Evolution; that is the evolution within species.
Another reason, though that last one is by far enough, is population. Those are just some reasons, though there are plenty, those are the biggest reasons I think.
We cannot know for certain where we came from, and when you ask an evolutionist what his position is, he says: "I believe..." -a religious statement. So in the end evolution is just as much a religion as Creationism, or I.D. is.
I have confidence that one plus one equals two. All hail Pythagoras.
Prove it. I'm here to point out it's not science.
Nicely said.
So are you saying it's not science just because it's not 100% proven? Is religion thereofre not religion, as God isn't 100% proven?
Math is not a proven fact. I have seen a person be hypnotized and convinced that the number 6 no longer existed. Can you be sure that there is not a number between one and two which one plus one already equals. Plus sometimes 1+1=10 (see binary math)No, it's not nicely said. You don't "have confidence" that one plus one equals two: you know. It's a proven mathematical fact. You have confidence (another way of saying you have faith) that something exploded from nothing 15 billion years ago.
Yes, I am. Science deals with facts, and study. Not with a theoy that can only be supported with theories.
yepReligion is religion because you can't prove it. Science is science because you can.
Science deals with facts, and study. Not with a theoy that can only be supported with theories.
Plus sometimes 1+1=10 (see binary math)
doppelgänger;815758 said:There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary math, and those who don't.
Science deals with facts, and study. Not with a theoy that can only be supported with theories.
Epistemology is the beginning of all things.
I do; it darned well better equal two, otherwise how would we know how many husbands/wives we really have?No, it's not nicely said. You don't "have confidence" that one plus one equals two...
As a wise man once said, "Epistemology is the beginning of all things." It's also the beginning of science. Science begins with, "What do we know?" and "How do we know things?" We make a hypothesis (or "guess" if you prefer) and test to see if we can disprove it. If we can't, we decide it's okay and move on. This is "proof"; this is "fact"; it is the only "proof" that science offers. So you tell me --does that make it absolutely true, or does that make it something we can have confidence in?...you know. It's a proven mathematical fact. You have confidence (another way of saying you have faith) that something exploded from nothing 15 billion years ago.
doppelgänger;815766 said:And the end.