Maths Proof: God Created the Universe

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I DO understand the science. That's the reason why I understand you are being absurd. Nobody claims science knows everything. They are saying that doubting it's accuracy is silly. It gets us to the answers. Sometimes it takes a while. Nothing in science is 100% proven. You follow the evidence and see where it points. You didn't quote a research paper, you quoted an article with a fancy title that proves nothing.

I posted the actual research paper. Maybe you don't understand what a theory is in science, or how it is built using verified testable evidence?

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We present spatially resolved, EUV spectroscopic measurements of pervasive, faint Fe xix 592.2 Å line emission in AR 11726 observed by EUNIS-13. The Fe xix line emission, formed at T ≈ 8.9 MK, provides strong support for nanoflare heating models of the solar corona; it is observed over an area in excess of 4920 arcsec2 (2.58 × 109 km2), which covers about 64% of the area in which the Fe xii intensity exceeds one-fourth its maximum value. With its cooled detectors, high sensitivity, and high spectral resolution, EUNIS-13 resolves the lines of Fe xix at 592.2 Å and Fe xii at 592.6 Å (T ≈ 1.6 MK), enabling us to compare emission measures at flare temperatures with those at standard active region temperatures. Inside the active region core the average emission measure ratio is ≈0.59, while just outside the core it is ≈0.076; however, in light of uncertainties related to the status of the plasma's ionization balance as well as uncertainties in the Fe xii contribution functions, these ratios must be treated with caution. No GOES events occurred in the region less than two hours before the rocket flight, but a microflare was observed north and east of the region with RHESSI and EUNIS during the flight. The absence of large, significant upward velocities anywhere in the region, particularly in the microflare, indicates that the pervasive Fe xix emission is not propelled outward from the microflare site, but most likely is produced by localized impulsive heating (due to reconnection events, wave dissipation, or some other mechanism) consistent with the nanoflare heating model of the solar corona.

EUNIS-13 was supported by the NASA Heliophysics Division through its Low Cost Access to Space program. CHIANTI is a collaborative project involving George Mason University, the University of Michigan (USA), and the University of Cambridge (UK). We thank Dr. Gordon Holman for assistance with creating the RHESSI image, and the anonymous referee for valuable comments that helped improve the manuscript.

I didn't say they knew every detail about every facet of it. Claiming it's "entirely theoretical" is beyond dishonest at this point. I'm sure they will learn more as time goes on and more observations and measurements are taken, but this is the evidence we have so far, and yes it's hard evidence.

a reply to: Barcs

I just did so, it's not about biochemistry only.
The deep love people feel was never addressed by science properly.

We can add that to the other dark part then.

Everything is made up of matter, so I don't see what you are getting at.

Obviously 95% of the universe doesn't agree with your take.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I was unaware that dark matter could agree and experience emotions, but okay.

So in other words you are just like the other guy. If science can't explain every detail about everything ever, it is like knowing nothing and all facts and evidence can be dismissed. Ok terrific. Time for a drink.

And unconditional love is not the same thing as being in love with somebody. We might use the same word but it's not the same emotion.

a reply to: Barcs

Never said science wouldn't be able to explain everything, just stated that we didn't see any conclusive world formula yet.

Love is not about the "falling in love" part only, which is indeed measurable in the change of biochemistry. All I say is that we talk about factoids in a much bigger picture, where big chunks are yet hidden to discover.

Enjoy your drink!

I remember the ATS community bashing creationists for as long as 8 years ago, but this is ridiculous. There's a difference between criticism and utilizing abusive ad-homiem's against the OP for his beliefs. I mean, c'mon guys. We're better than this.

Interesting post, OP. I applaud your effort and for sticking your neck out based on your beliefs.

originally posted by: FutureWarrior
I remember the ATS community bashing creationists for as long as 8 years ago, but this is ridiculous. There's a difference between criticism and utilizing abusive ad-homiem's against the OP for his beliefs. I mean, c'mon guys. We're better than this.

Interesting post, OP. I applaud your effort and for sticking your neck out based on your beliefs.

op made a claim and the claim has been refuted. if the op came back and said "ok, you are right, lets go back to the drawing board, thanks guys" that would be the end of it.

but then the op comes back and says "no you are wrong." which demands further refutation. which we patiently provide. rinse and repeat a few dozen times.

at that point, you are just making noise. and if you get some noise back, whose fault is it? if you dont want to be peer reviewed, then dont subject yourself to peer review. we didnt make thelamb post this thread but when you abuse and misrepresent mathematic principle to make yourself look good, expect mathematicians to be irritated.

this isnt thelambs first time pulling this kind of stunt either. factor that into the short fuses.

a reply to: FutureWarrior

It appears that you missed all topics that pop up on the same theme... few circles, triangles, formulas that has nothing to do with reality and conclusion - god is real, end of the world etc... It is kind of repetition of the same thing, over and over.

Of course, real ID/Creationism folks are focused on something completely different... how to mess public education and include 'different view', that has nothing to do with science...

But you appear to know that already, don't you?

The OP is so far off the beam it's really not worth challenging. The diagram he posted is unreadable. But if you zoom in on the image, whoever wrote it simply substitute M for m - i.e. M = God whereas m = mass (in Einstein's theory).
It's a totally dishonest screwed up representation of Einstein's work.

Relativity has been proven. Get over it already.

I know Creationists resent education and shun away from anything that represents the real science, but I'll post this video anyway - who knows, miracles do happen!

a reply to: SuperFrog

You're right. It is all too familiar. I've seen it over the years here, coming and going. You have to award him something for the effort though. Haha