I have heard these arguments in different forums. The Law of Conservation of Matter clearly states that atoms and subatomic particles cannot be created or destroyed. A couple of ideas about how things came to be:
1) Matter and energy always existed. Really? Even though it's not provable in any fashion or form, this is one of the things accepted by science.
2) Before the big bang occurred there was only energy. But, when the big bang occurred, all of the energy was released and that energy turned into matter. E=mc^2 states that energy is a very concentrated form of matter, and matter is a very concentrated form of energy. Wow! Beginning to sound like circular reasoning.
The thing is: Matter and energy came from somewhere. To agree with the first idea, you would also have to agree that there was a time when there was no time. (Funny how this is starting to sound like science is trying to explain what eternity is.) . To say something "always was", means eternity. Which "always existed" is saying the same thing. How can something always be, without eternity? It's like God said: I am the Alpha and Omega.... Which easily translates to an "eternity" state of being. It is believed that if we could experience "eternity", that we could be anywhere in time we wanted. And we could be all places at once also. We would know all and see all. And we would be in a realm where we could do anything. Being able to be anywhere and everywhere at the same time would mean that the laws that we now know of would not apply to the realm of eternity. How could a law explain being in all places through time at once?
Though I have heard there's a theory that if you go beyond 10x the speed of light, time would stop, or you would occupy all corners of the universe at once. Na, I think you would just go really fast until you hit something and would not live to tell about it. Or the speed itself would kill you. Even though there is no gravity in space. Going that fast would have to cause some type of g-force. Maybe there's a space type of g-force that we don't know about yet because we have not gone fast enough to experience it.
Now for number two idea. This is not provable either. You cannot have one without the other, and neither can be destroyed or created. Or did I get that wrong? Can energy exist without matter?
An opinion: It would seem to me that none of this could exist without it being created by a being that lives in this eternal time dimension spoke of earlier. And having control over things that we currently do not understand God says that He always was. Idea number one says that matter and energy always was. Idea number two makes it sound like you can bottle up energy and release it. And that it can exist without matter.
Having the answer to this one thing I believe would give us the truth of our origins. And since God lives in a realm of eternity, and some of science's ideas are touching on this realm of eternity, could mean we are about to prove there is a God. Question is: Will science allow a finding such as this be known? Why? Think about it. All of what science is, would fall like a house of cards if God were provable. It means that His word is true and God would be testable, eternity does exist, and our laws of science don't apply there. Which would also mean that God can and did create in 6 days just like He said. Problem is, who in science world would step forward with such information when everyone else is mocked and laughed at that even tries to prove any part of God?
Yeah, I know what your thinking. That I believe science is full of atheist. I'll admit that I do, and have good reason. Name one scientific theory that supports God or even mentions God? Sounds like an atheist only club to me. Still don't believe me? Start talking about God at the next science convention your at and see how nice the return language is. You'll be laughed right out of that convention and never invited to another one. You'll be labeled as a quack. Still don't believe me? Then I dare you to do it. I have yet to see someone test this, but are willing to say it won't happen. Sorry to say that it has already has more than once. Why do you think that a creation scientists can't work with regular scientists? In fact, why is there a difference in the labeling of these people? Did not most go to the same school? Separation of those who believe in the infallible word of God form those who think up ideas that don't involve God, is what? Bias at it's highest form because God is not invited.
