Can the Laws of Nature be broken? (power, Monster, websites)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because of the various theories that often get alleged as facts, the scientific laws observed in nature are often disregarded during the explanation of certain theories. So the basic question is what proves that any law of nature we know of can actually be broken?
As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me." We must now be on the 5th or 6th time, and the odds are this will soon be closed... so it's foolish to respond, but I will address the obvious elephant in the room:
The first thing is to clarify what you mean by Laws of Nature or "scientific laws." Presumably you will include the recently-flouted "Law of Biogenesis," so let's use that as example. It should tell you something, as it surely tells others, that the only places you see this referenced as a "law" are highly biased sources (like creationist and Christian apologetics websites), which apparently hope that elevating the principle that life generally comes from life to a "LAW" will help them (and you, as their willing but duped soldier) fight against the evils of evolution. This is a transparent ploy, and won't get far with any credible scientist. Yes, Louis Pasteur (a credible scientist) helped to disprove the aging notion of spontaneous generation, but (a) that demonstration did not establish biogenesis as a "law of nature," or (b) explain the origins of life when it first appeared nearly 4 billion years ago. The latter, of course, may be hard to grasp by someone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old... but when life first began is much more established than HOW life first began. We can estimate the age of earth (and life on earth) with a high degree of confidence, getting more and more accurate all the time; we only have working hypotheses about the origins of life.
Short answer, the "Law of Biogenesis" is a creation of creationists, and no one is breaking or disregarding any actual laws when they (attempt to) explain science to you. The same will apply to whatever law you think is being violated with your "can't shrink a steel ball" argument. These are transparent "gotcha" arguments that are dead on arrival, and you are still just barking.
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 08-28-2021 at 11:48 AM..
As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me." We must now be on the 5th or 6th time, and the odds are this will soon be closed... so it's foolish to respond, but I will address the obvious elephant in the room:
The first thing is to clarify what you mean by Laws of Nature or "scientific laws." Presumably you will include the recently-flouted "Law of Biogenesis," so let's use that as example. It should tell you something, as it surely tells others, that the only places you see this referenced as a "law" are highly biased sources (like creationist and Christian apologetics websites), which apparently hope that elevating the principle that life generally comes from life to a "LAW" will help them (and you, as their willing but duped soldier) fight against the evils of evolution. This is a transparent ploy, and won't get far with any credible scientist. Yes, Louis Pasteur (a credible scientist) helped to disprove the aging notion of spontaneous generation, but (a) that demonstration did not establish biogenesis as a "law of nature," or (b) explain the origins of life when it first appeared nearly 4 billion years ago. The latter, of course, may be hard to grasp by someone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old... but when life first began is much more established than HOW life first began. We can estimate the age of earth (and life on earth) with a high degree of confidence, getting more and more accurate all the time; we only have working hypotheses about the origins of life.
Short answer, the "Law of Biogenesis" is a creation of creationists, and no one is breaking or disregarding any actual laws when they (attempt to) explain science to you. The same will apply to whatever law you think is being violated with your "can't shrink a steel ball" argument. These are transparent "gotcha" arguments that are dead on arrival, and you are still just barking.
I was asking in general, can known laws be broken? If so, what laws?
I was asking in general, can known laws be broken? If so, what laws?
You started the thread, so you go first. Your prior efforts speak for themselves (and not in a good way), but what laws did you have in mind? Why should anyone have to guess what you are talking about?
You started the thread, so you go first. Your prior efforts speak for themselves (and not in a good way), but what laws did you have in mind? Why should anyone have to guess what you are talking about?
As I said before, In general can it happen?
Whether its one of the laws of thermodynamics, law of causality, etc. Take anything thats been substantiated in principle. I'm asking for references from you or anybody else who perhaps knows of something about valid laws being broken in nature. I'm asking others in order to learn something new.
Because of the various theories that often get alleged as facts, the scientific laws observed in nature are often disregarded during the explanation of certain theories. So the basic question is what proves that any law of nature we know of can actually be broken?
Is anyone claiming that the laws of nature are being broken?
Is anyone claiming that the laws of nature are being broken?
Yes, some do.
A day or so ago, Harry said he believes in the BBT that nothing existed before it occurred, i had asked him if he held to the position that all matter was eternal which must be according to typical atheistic evolution, he denies the eternality of matter, therefore according to him, the big bang created this matter. So if I'm representing him correctly, then you would have the law of causality to be broken. Something coming from nothing.
Many others along the decades have thought that nature created itself when at one time nothing existed, that is as irrational as anything can be since we all depend upon cause and effect. Everything must have a reason, dont you agree?
A day or so ago, Harry said he believes in the BBT that nothing existed before it occurred, i had asked him if he held to the position that all matter was eternal which must be according to typical atheistic evolution, he denies the eternality of matter, therefore according to him, the big bang created this matter. So if I'm representing him correctly, then you would have the law of causality to be broken. Something coming from nothing.
Many others along the decades have thought that nature created itself when at one time nothing existed, that is as irrational as anything can be since we all depend upon cause and effect. Everything must have a reason, dont you agree?
No one knows what existed before the big bang. But there had to be some form of existing energy to power the big bang. One view is that some form of unstable energy inflated. The eternal inflation model (there are different inflation models) is that new universes are constantly 'banging' (a misnomer) into existence (the multiverse concept).
There has always had to have been something in existence since nothing can arise from absolute nothing. By absolute nothing I mean no form of energy at all, no other dimensions or universes - NOTHING.
When physicists speak of the universe coming from nothing they do not mean absolute nothing, but rather refer to virtual particles (quantum foam) which are always phasing into and out of existence.
Because of the various theories that often get alleged as facts, the scientific laws observed in nature are often disregarded during the explanation of certain theories. So the basic question is what proves that any law of nature we know of can actually be broken?
I suspect that you don't understand the use of the term "theory" in the scientific context. Perhaps you can explain in your own words the difference between a generic theory and a scientific theory.
Then you can list what you think are "laws of nature."
A day or so ago, Harry said he believes in the BBT that nothing existed before it occurred, i had asked him if he held to the position that all matter was eternal which must be according to typical atheistic evolution, he denies the eternality of matter, therefore according to him, the big bang created this matter. So if I'm representing him correctly, then you would have the law of causality to be broken. Something coming from nothing.
Many others along the decades have thought that nature created itself when at one time nothing existed, that is as irrational as anything can be since we all depend upon cause and effect. Everything must have a reason, dont you agree?
What do you know about the Big Bang Theory? What are the factual observations that support it? How were they determined? Where does the knowledge end up being extrapolation?
Also, what in the world is "atheistic evolution," and how does it differ from the evolution studied in research universities?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
