Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again, that is YOUR Straw Man. I said you don't need to know EVERYTHING to prove energy cannot be created or destroyed. Your moronic position is that if we don't know everything we can't know anything.The logic fail is on your part. Nobody has said that something is not true until it's proven. But logically speaking, when the study of science has brought us to conclusions regarding matters (like the fact that energy cannot be created) your insisting that it's not true requires positive proof for your position.
Sure he did. Ask Ed the Flat-earther if it is possible that science does not fully understand the nature of and origins of energy.
He simply will refuse to admit the possibility.
LOL
Science knows enough to prove that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.Again, that is YOUR Straw Man. I said you don't need to know EVERYTHING to prove energy cannot be created or destroyed. Your moronic position is that if we don't know everything we can't know anything.Sure he did. Ask Ed the Flat-earther if it is possible that science does not fully understand the nature of and origins of energy.
He simply will refuse to admit the possibility.
LOL
(watch this duck)
Hey Ed.
Is it possible that science does not know everything there is to know about the origin of energy?
He is what passes as a scientist to Republicans these days
Thank you for proving my point!Before the Big Bang there was _________________________.
LOL
Can't answer the question, eh?
I suppose you want us to just accept your freaky religion on faith.
What a freaky Shaman you are!
LOL
Science knows enough to prove that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.Again, that is YOUR Straw Man. I said you don't need to know EVERYTHING to prove energy cannot be created or destroyed. Your moronic position is that if we don't know everything we can't know anything.
(watch this duck)
Hey Ed.
Is it possible that science does not know everything there is to know about the origin of energy?
That is not the equipment James Prescott Joule used to prove that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. No wonder you keep making a fool of yourself.
FYI, Joule actually used 3 different experimental methods to measure if energy was created or destroyed. So he had 3 tools 150 years ago, others have come up with other methods since, but all confirmed Joule's results.
Are you, therefore, stating that James Prescott Joule used better instruments to achieve more accurate results?
Is it POSSIBLE that we could have even better instruments 400 years from now which indicate there is, indeed, a source of energy?
Has science EVER been wrong on conclusions?
Are you really a close minded, flat-earther ideologue who simply discounts the possibility that you do not know what you do not know?
LOL
That is not the equipment James Prescott Joule used to prove that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. No wonder you keep making a fool of yourself.
FYI, Joule actually used 3 different experimental methods to measure if energy was created or destroyed. So he had 3 tools 150 years ago, others have come up with other methods since, but all confirmed Joule's results.
Are you, therefore, stating that James Prescott Joule used better instruments to achieve more accurate results?
Is it POSSIBLE that we could have even better instruments 400 years from now which indicate there is, indeed, a source of energy?
Has science EVER been wrong on conclusions?
Are you really a close minded, flat-earther ideologue who simply discounts the possibility that you do not know what you do not know?
LOL
Ed, you've made a very bad mistake here. By presenting sniperfire with the simplified version of energy conversion, you're giving him the perfect excuse to reject everything being said once mass-energy equivalence comes up. He won't get it, but he'll think that he does.
People who think like that aren't competent enough to hold any form of candidacy in office.
Agreed.
Thinking that there was once absolutely nothing that just decided to blow up one day and become everything is beyond any rational thought and should disqualify him from breathing, much less being a candidate for office!
Agreed.
Thinking that there was once absolutely nothing that just decided to blow up one day and become everything is beyond any rational thought and should disqualify him from breathing, much less being a candidate for office!
Especially when you can have a magical creature create it all for you
We seem to be in disagreement. In fact, you are in disagreement with about 95% of humans on earth.
You are therefore a freak, but should that disqualify you from holding office... or breathing?
[ Ed the Dick] Ah. I see. We are to believe that 'energy' just existed before anything ever existed.
Trust you on that one, you insist!
Yours is a freakish faith.
But as long as you aren't trying to go all Jihad and force everyone to believe your freakish mythology, I suppose you can run for Dog Catcher.
LOL
Is it POSSIBLE that science does not know everything there is to know about the origin of energy?
Yes or No?
Is it POSSIBLE that science does not know everything there is to know about the origin of energy?
Yes or No?
You're moving the goal post. Preservation of energy and origin of energy are entirely two different matters.
I have never moved the goal posts.
Why are you so deathly afraid to answer the simple question?
ROTFL
Let's try it again.
Is it POSSIBLE that science does not know everything there is to know about the origin of energy?
Yes or No?
"Is it POSSIBLE that science does not know everything there is to know about the origin of energy?"
I think it is a true statement.
But how does this prove the existence of a god or that saying current science ideas are straight from hell good political policy?
I have never moved the goal posts.
Why are you so deathly afraid to answer the simple question?
ROTFL
Let's try it again.
Is it POSSIBLE that science does not know everything there is to know about the origin of energy?
Yes or No?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying that you simply don't understand that you're moving the goal post. So I'll say again: Preservation of energy and the origins of energy are entirely different subjects. So tell me, which one would you like to discuss? I'll happily discuss either one, but you must keep the apples with the apples and the oranges with the oranges.
"Is it POSSIBLE that science does not know everything there is to know about the origin of energy?"
People used to believe "grasshoppers ate the night time away causing the sun to arrive" - they were correct too. Until a better classical rational explanation came along.
So yes - your statement is correct. But so what? It does not nothing to bolster the existence of God nor excuse claiming current scientific ideas are from Satan.
