If there isn't any creation theory, it's because no scientist made one up, yet. We both know that the body of science writing is so great, that we don't know that there isn't any creation theory.

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.

What about the peppered moth during the industrial revolution?

Short or long, you don't seem to understand that science uses Quantum to determine what is impossible. Quantum is probability. If something is improbable enough, science say that it is impossible.

Science law IS more sound than science theory. It simply is not free as science theory is. There is no freedom to play in science law. Science theory allows one to play all over the place. That is why science law is more solid than science theory.

The science theory might be the best tool that we have, but revelation from someone who understands is better than science.

Also, the website you listed starts out stating the idea that a "scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory." But a scientific law can be found without using a scientific theory. For example. Something might be an absolute fact observed by millions of people without a scientific application. Then some scientist makes a scientific observation, and the law is made without the theory.

The point is, scientific theory can be rebutted with other scientific theory. A scientific law cannot. When there is no shadow of a doubt that a scientific theory is correct, it becomes a scientific law.

And even if there isn't, that doesn't authenticate evolution. Evolution is a hoax.

The 3rd is based on the fact that everything has motion, even though it isn't said.

You said what I am trying to tell you better than I. The dismissal of non-factual things in science, makes the remaining things factual... in science. And that is what we are talking about here. Science law and science theory. Not absolute fact without the slightest evidence against.

Didn't you read the topic title? "Scientific proof that God exists?" How can you miss the word "science" in the topic? Science dismisses "things" as impossible when there are great enough odds against them. That's when we get science law, which is essentially science fact. When there are insufficient odds against them in the understanding of the science community.

Science theory is not science law because there are great enough odds that an opposing science theory can be made.

Will you ever get out of political science talk?

How dense are you? You don't seem to understand that an action that gets a reaction is a cause that has an effect. If I had a nickle for every bit of science 101 I had to remind you of, I'd be very wealthy.

I never heard anybody knit-pick a topic as much as you. The teensy-eensy bit of lab work that shows that evolution just might possibly exist, has been caused by scientists setting it all up to find what they were looking for. That exact causation defies evolution theory about random mutations.

There is absolutely nothing in nature that has ever been observed that has ever been proven to be part of evolution. Everything in nature that seems to be scientific evidence for evolution, scientifically fits creation better.

Evolution is a hoax.

The act of science investigation uses cause and effect,
nothing has ever been found to not have a cause,
scientifically speaking there are so many causes without a non-cause effect ever having been discovered that the odds against non-cause make cause in everything to be a science fact.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

You forget the part that God upholding His honor and His Name is the thing that keeps mankind in existence. This is the reason why your "sick" really is health for us.

Science of itself is not a religion. But when people believe that science theory is fact, they have turned science into a religion for themselves. Why? Because all science theory can have opposing science theory if only some scientist would make the opposing theory. This is especially true now that we have Quantum Mechanics (which is also a theory). This makes science theory to be in the unknown classification regarding whether it is fact or not. Anybody who believes an unknown to be fact, essentially has a religion going for himself.

Have you looked at what the religious brethren say, and those to whom they say it? Mostly they talk to average people with the idea of salvation. But when you look at what the scientists who investigate the Bible say, they have all kinds of understandings that are far beyond the science of this world, and often very different than what the people teachers say.

You are just another religions science person, turning science into a religion for yourself, because you don't want to look at reality.

Any argument that I have lost is in the political science realms, where I don't really like going. That means that I can be out-talked with words rather than hard science facts, because that is what political science is about.

Now get out of political science and religion, and get into real science. Prove or disprove the existence of God, or start a religious topic, since all you seem to want to do is talk religion.

Now you are using political science again. Get into the science of Bible creation history (the way the Bible came together), and the science of the logic of the things that the Bible says, and you will see that Bible science is the best and most accurate science around.

You forgot about Newton already? He says nothing else in his 3rd law.

1. Thanks for pointing out that I conflated the 1700's with the 17th century.  *facepalm*

2. He used a telescope to view the lead balls through the hole in the wall? *double facrpalm*

3. Sucessfuly replicated hah, sources for your bullshit?

4. Proof the ocean curves that isn't NASA CGI?

The fact that we don't is part of the evidence.   

Right! We have no evidence other than the machine-nature of the universe. And machines have makers. This is the simplest proof.

All the sciences shows that everything has a cause. Perhaps few say it.

Scientists who study the Bible and its history, find more truth there than in any other science studies.

I do not understand why there are still many people who do not believe in the existence of God. But they all believe in the end of the day. That day is proof that God exists. Nevertheless, I still respect those who do not believe in God because the decision is right for them.