theory of everything..?

Question

the theories of evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, string theory, chaos and whatever else they've come up with have failed .. failed .. and failed to meet the basic criteria required to answer our questions of how and why we are here. logic, reason and science are left out of the above theories, and to be conservative, they essentially struggle for ultimate credibility.

the research into the above remains biased and unproven, while history, geology, basic science, and both physics and quantum physics suggest the likelihood of the above theories serving a place in reality is undoubtedly impossible.

the many arguments posed by supporters of these theories conflict within themselves and contradict each other on a numerous amount of levels, which, to put it simply, have supported not the theories themselves, but instead, the idea that these theories have reached their schizophrenic impasse.

the one argument that both opposes the above while standing on a strong foundation of logic, science, reason, history, geology and above all truth, is that which includes God and His involvement in how everything has come to be the way it is. with so much supporting evidence, it cannot be disproved, and moreover, it proves beyond a doubt while giving more than enough reason that we are here in this environment with a purpose.

question: the term 'creationism' falls short of the total explanation. shall we instead call this truth the 'theory of everything'..?

... for further information on the above statements, i recommend watching "the elegant universe" ...

Answer 1

My personal opinion-God is behind all science,God is energy,timeless-requiring no beginning and no end and was the "force" behind the big bang.God has the one simple mathematical equation for everything that every scientist strives to find.

Answer 2

Everything? What a statement! There is one thing about truth that everyone should remember: 'The only truth about truth IS that it is forever changing'. Look around you, does anything stand still, other than the human mind? Any scientist who claimed that she/he have the final explanation is not a scientist but an ignorant media reporter. By its very meaning of the word, a theory is an idea not a final proof. And even Einstein called his famous energy equation the theory of relativity. And as scientists are finding now that there are flaws in it and in the laws of physics, as our knowledge of the universe expands. The Big Bang, Creation and all the other ideas are only that- IDEAS! not truths. I personally feel that trying to explain creation is like chasing a dream. Man will never find the explanation because it is a past event and has moved forward. Time cannot go back. It has to forever change rather than forever stand still or regress. So I wish people would spend less time and energy, and money chasing the 'dragon's tail' and deal with life and issue which they are living, if they don't they will learn nothing and life would have passed them by.

Answer 3

So the scientific arguments like evolution, big bang, etc, are not convincing because science itself says they are not highly probabilistic?



Who determines the basic criteria required to answer our questions?



Why do you buy into history, geology, basic science, and physics but not evolution etc?



What's the scientific support for God's intervention in the way things are? What's our purpose for being here by that logic? Why do you find that evidence more compelling?



I'm not advocating for one side or the other here, I'm simply asking you to evaluate whether you are actually being unbiased and rational in your treatment of all of the various arguments. Because it appears like you chose what was credible based on the ultimate result you wanted to believe.



And why would you need a new moniker for it? Wouldn't it be the truth and not a theory if you believed the theory was valid?



:)

Answer 4

As to that issues replace: so what! communicate a pair of lot of socalled scietific hand waving to over categorize (an blunders in serious questioning of hasty overgeneralization; there is such because of the fact the set of information all authentic yet seem to be contradictory) a phenomenon that ought to no longer keep the 2nd of theromdynamics of physics nor the math of probability. with out conserving different variables consistent, the technological know-how ought to no longer isolate a learn on very lots. And yet, on an identical time, the interrelationship of those remoted variables ought to be studied jointly to form a extra holistic concepts-set to the socalled technological know-how. Newton stated 'regulation' in the 1800's or so. We see that there could be extra choose for learn into why and hows of the certainly mechanics of the gravity. So then, isn't 'regulation' a misnomer with admire to the relativity of the circumstances and reactivities in touch in the viscosity of area and darkish count. by potential of how, Babylon had a narrative of a undeniable planet that was once seen in the sky which expoded sometime; i think of. The gravitation of our photograph voltaic gadget is asserted, to right this moment, to have a 'placeholder' with admire to the gravitational forces conversing to the existence of yet another planet 'previous' pluto which has no longer been got here across.

Answer 5

Please give us an example of the contradictions you refer to. Just one will do. Post in under your question or email me.



If possible I'd also like an example of how science supports the existence of God. You made the claim - you must have the goods.



It's all very well to make bold, sweeping statements of religious dogma as if it were evident fact - it's quite another thing to support them. I respectfully suggest that you "put up or shut up" as the saying goes.



Can you do that? Or are you just breaking wind?



P.S. "The Elegant Universe" does not support creationism either.

Answer 6

i believe you are trying to establish an argument in favor of religion being the answer to the "great" question of "the beginning of everything".



this is kind of a back door approach to creation v. evolution - science v. religion. this is the ultimate argument that christians and theists use for "intelligent design" and a "finely-tuned universe" - that religion alone holds the answers.



my criticism of this argument is that it is an argument by lack of imagination because it assumes that no other forms of life, based upon alternative biochemistry, are possible.



human beings are adapted to this universe through the process of evolution, rather than the universe being adapted to human beings. your argument is that the universe was adapted and tuned for US?



this is an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the universe. the argument you use is by nature one in which god created all of this for humans, for man, for us...



sorry, my ego isn't that big.



i'm not as smart as the next guy, but i'll stick with the facts and logic and truths that i CAN follow. and that means following science.

Answer 7

' the one argument that both opposes the above while standing on a strong foundation of logic, science, reason, history, geology and above all truth, is that which includes God'.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Answer 8

Why even bother to pretend to use science to debunk these theories? Why not be honest and just say that given you inability to understand science you believe that a fairy is the only possible source of the world. That would be more intellectually honest than the ridiculous pseudo scientific claims that you are making here.

Answer 9

if thats what you believe then fine if you believe that there is a being in the sky not contained with in anything but just there and that this thing that just is created all else and you believe that this is logical,scientific and that our purpose is to just worship this creator then thats fine by me. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Answer 10

In short, Creationism is the truth, and Science is BS. That's what you are trying to say.



Conclusion: You're ignorant.

Answer 11

well, if you say these theories fail, I will have to tell the tens of thousands of scientist who use them everyday to stop working. I'm sure they will be disappointed

Answer 12

The only thing that has failed is you and your ridiculous argument.

Answer 13

Your statement is utter nonsense. So the answer to any of your proposals is `No, absolutely not.`

Answer 14

you are stupid

all of these theory are WAY more supported by evidence then Creationism, in fact Creationism has nothing.

Answer 15

creationism

love to create lies

jus don't mind them live your life

anyways as you said they don't get their job done right so why waste time on them

Answer 16

Even *nothing is something* thats the theory.

Answer 17

so you have a problem with being here cause of chance?

Answer 18

This my children is what i known as "lying for jesus".

Answer 19

is this person sane?