[QUOTE]
Originally posted by sportsrule101
Quote:
|
Where did the matter come from to create "time"
|
err rephrase the question please. Matter didn't create time...
Quote:
|
Those were not my words "no one possibly could either"
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by sportsrule101 Man's logic is failed (including mine), he will never figure out how the universe came to be with his current logic, and mental abilities. The only way he will know is if he evolves into a creature with a different unknown logic pattern, or he goes and meet a "creator" in the next life.
|
Read the bold text. You stated that you and the rest of humanity can't figure out how the universe was created. I just was paraphrasing what you said.
Quote:
|
I just think hink that mans logic is flawed in some unforseeable way.
|
Wtf do you mean by "man's logic"?
Quote:
|
No man has solved where we have come from yet, so its not just me who can't figure it out, its you as well. Theory of relativity, is still just that a theory. creation hasn't been proven. nothing has been proven yet.
|
I quote John Rennie:
Quote:
Originally posted by John Rennie
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
|