Science Disproves Evolution

Listen, you clearly are mixed up.
Please reread your posts.
Logic demands every effect has a cause.
The universe is an effect from a very specific cause.
You can claim anything, - No first cause -( no start)
If you claim that you are not logical.

First of all, logic is a language/system of coming to conclusions on premises. If someone does not accept the idea that every effect has a cause then they can still be acting logically. It is just that arguments they make on the subject probably wouldn't be found to be sound by other even if they are valid.

I've reread my post, and I didn't claim that was my position. You are even straw-manning the potential conclusion I brought up, which I don't hold, to an argument which I am not even sure is sound and then claiming that straw-man belief to be my position.

You said - "If someone does not accept the idea that every effect has a cause then they can still be acting logically."

Acting Yes, Thinking No.
- You cannot suspend the laws of logic anymore than the law of gravity.
- - I see you are sold out into situational ethics, even to the sacrificing of logical thought.

The only straw man is your vain philosophy.

The "law of cause and effect" is a premise, it is not a law of logic. A lot of scientific laws also break down when you put them in situations that they were not meant to be applied do. Many scientific laws, including many of Newton's, are not completely correct they are inexact. When you look at systems that very small or very large they often don't hold up.

I have no experience with existence, if there was any, before the moments after this state of the universe began to exist. I have no way to observe it or look into it so I can't make claims about it or determine if these "laws" apply to that specific, and obscure, situation.

Dude, you are mistaken - the theory of relativity addresses the four basic laws of the physical realm:
1. ElectroMagnetic
2. Gravity
3. Strong Nuclear Force
4. Weak Nuclear force
Einstein discovered gravity can bend light - Newton did not know this. All of the physical laws are still in effect.
There are black holes(light being pulled into and captured by gravity), the gravity of the sun bends the starlight passing by it to earth. These laws are immutable and don't waver.

As for the laws of strong and weak nuclear force, not ever are they broken, that's what holds the matter in the universe together.

You say - "I" didn't see this, or "I" didn't observe that.
That is what true science has proven - first Newton, then Einstein's theory of General Relativity.
Einstein showed how at hyper speeds Newtons theory breaks down.....but there are still laws there in effect!
None changes.

You can philosophize all you want about your place in the world, - (as only 'knowing' what you experience).
The laws of the physical universe are immutable, and have been proven over and over and over again by the scientific method.

Typical dishonest atheist tactic. Once you get deep into a conversation/debate with a view you're defending, then realize your position has been defeated and it's proven that your position is devoid of all logic, back out of it entirely by claiming it was never your position to begin with.

I started with the claim that it was one of the conclusions you can come to from the cosmological argument. If we want to discuss what I believe on the matter I could bring that up. I was just stating that the cosmological argument, if sound, just implies a first cause and that is all. It doesn't imply anything else. It doesn't imply it is self caused, which I NEVER even claimed it would have to, it just implies that there was something without a cause. It doesn't say it is intelligent, powerful, or any other properties of this "first cause", only that it didn't come from an effect.

If we want to go the extra step and say this first cause is a god then there would have to be other arguments to go with it. I would find it quite strange if the first cause was something extremely complex like a god. I would wonder how and why such complexity would just exist with no cause, but again I can't know what the conditions were before that point.

These laws are just models to make predictions about the world and explain the nature of a certain set of situations. However, many of Newton's laws break down as you approach the speed of light or when you start dealing with things that are very small that are explained in quantum mechanics. In general, Newton's laws are still useful for making predictions in the vast majority of situations but that doesn't mean that the universe, as a whole, abides by them. Still, his laws are wonderful approximations of what is happening.

They are still considered laws in name, but they are bounded to be applied under certain conditions. I am not saying they aren't extremely useful models and are very useful for predicting things, but the universe doesn't bend to follow these laws and there are exceptions, as you have admitted, where the laws break down.

If you are going to consider what things were like before the universe began to exist, we can't just assume that all of the rules that we have created by observing how things act will still apply to that realm. We have no observation of what it was like then, and we know that Newton's laws do not accurately model the events that seemed to be unfolding near the beginning of the universe so I see no reason to assume that they would apply before that.

Except they have been shown not to work in specific circumstances.

As for physical laws they all apply all of the time, Newton discovered the laws for slow matter, Einstein for hyper speed matter.
They correlate to each other perfectly. There are no laws of the physical universe that are sometimes revoked by special circumstances.

Until you explain first cause for the universe's existence, we have nothing more to discuss.

Okay, then we have nothing more to discuss.

This man rejects the first law of matter, time, space, and therefore motion: - causality.

Depending on how you define it I guess you can say I do, but using those definitions you would also be saying that most physicists reject it as well. If you are going to use definitions that allow for that, then I am okay with that claim being made about me.

Which physicists?
Most believe in an intelligent designer or a flat out God.
Both Newton and Einstein did.

The following comes from "What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,"The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17. The questions are posed by Viereck; the reply to each is by Einstein. Since the interview was conducted in Berlin and both Viereck and Einstein had German as their mother tongue, the interview was likely conducted in German and then translated into English by Viereck.
Some portions of this interview might seem questionable, but this portion of the interview was explicitly confirmed by Einstein. When asked about a clipping from a magazine article (likely the Saturday Evening Post) reporting Einstein's comments on Christianity taken down by Viereck, Einstein carefully read the clipping and replied, "That is what I believe." See Brian pp. 277 - 278.
[HR][/HR] "To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?
"Emil Ludwig's Jesus," replied Einstein, "is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

Michio Kaku, Lawrence M. Krauss, Richard Feynman, Erwin Schrodinger... to name a few. These are people who acknowledge that Newton's laws and equations break down at certain levels.

Einstein believed in the concept of Spinoza's god, which I don't think most laymen would call a god. He was a strict determinist and didn't believe in the bible in any literal sense.
"... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -Einstein, 1954

Besides I wasn't talking about physicists believing in god or not in my last statement, I was talking about how they accept the fact that Newton's "laws" don't work for modeling things on very small scales nor systems with objects with extremely high speeds. That was my claim.

Much of this argument is predicated on what we define as the physical laws of the universe. The laws we have are our definition of how the universe works that we have determined by observation. We cannot say that they are absolute or work everywhere in the universe - we do not know. For example - the law of gravity as defined by Newton g=(Gm1m2/r^2). This works 100% of the time and is an unchanging physical law of the universe - except at the quantum level where it breaks down - especially at distances of the order of a Plank length. There are other anomalies around gravity that can be read up upon. It turns out that although we have what we call a law of gravity - we still do not understand quite how gravity works in all cases - so our law is only applicable in a certain frame of reference. This is true of all our laws of physics - they are dependent upon your frame of reference and in some cases -singularities - our laws of physics break down. The big bang theory also states that for a fraction of a second after the big bang our laws of physics did not exist or apply

Newtonian physics breaks down under Einstienian physics (relativity), not just at the quantum level. This is because Newtonian physics is a subset of a larger reality. This should leave us questioning about the things we don't know and not becoming dogmatic on the science of today. Who knows what we might discover in the future?

Atheists love to prove they are being intelligent by claiming that the science of today is absolutely true and parrot something they just read about. They look down their noses at Christians as if we are stone aged heathens wearing a bucket over our head for good luck. That is just arrogance. We are all the same, more or less.

I definitely agree with this.

I have seen a lot of atheists online, especially on these forums, doing this. I don't see it often with atheists offline but I might just be surrounded by a culture that is abnormal.

Anyone who claims that the science of today is absolutely true is not a scientist and does not understand science be they atheist or christian.

I love this statement, I really do. It also is just really begging me to ask this question.

If that statement is true and widely accepted, then why are school kids being taught that specific events from billions of years ago are absolute, unquestionable, scientific facts?

Whether Newton or Einstein, no laws break down.
Energy equals Mass times the (speed of light squared) does not refute Newtonian laws.
Newtonian physics are true.
When mass approaches the speed of light, Einstein's theory is true.

- Neither negates the other.
- - Anyone would know this if they knew anything about physics.