Figures
-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Just got baptized
- Thread starter Darknight
- Start date
Figures
Something cannot be a theory and also a fact, it's a theory, or its a fact. Evolution is a fact, the bible is a theory.
It's law and fact for me to drive down a national limit road in the UK at 70 miles per hour. That does not stop people driving down it at 80 miles per hour.
Your logic is flawed. You are flawed. Your whole life is flawed.
PS: Another wasted reply.. I read up to the point I quoted.
Evolution is fact? You're sadly deluded. Evolution is a theory that requires you believe that life can "build itself". Life can only reproduce itself, it can't build itself. Is there a process by which species have been created and altered over long periods of time? Yes. Is it evolution? No; because in no way does it ever "build" or "improve" life. Do you believe that the Fresnel lens built itself too? It was designed by a physicist for a purpose. It was later found that it exists in nature. There's no "in-between" state between a regular lens and a Fresnel lens, so how does it exist in nature?
I don't care what you read up to. Physics is theoretical. Any physicist in the world will tell you that.
If you want to believe in nonsense, that's your business. Just don't come on here and start telling everyone its fact all the while refusing to back-up your own claims that the Bible is fiction; and then accuse me of being ignorant, which anyone can see I am not. You've been given every opportunity, you can't hold up a debate.
Last edited:
That theory is held by only a handful of serious physicists. In my view, if there was a multiverse there would be evidence of its existence. If you want to believe in something there is no evidence for, we have a phrase for that: blind faith.
Even a multiverse would still not allow life to exist from chance alone. Because if we are in a multiverse then supposedly this would be the ONLY universe in the "infinitely big" multiverse which has the laws of physics just right to support life; even then you still have to allow an eternity for life to begin. This is ridiculous; life could only begin to exist after the universe has expanded to the size it has and has cooled to the temperature it has. There was no possibility of life for the first 12 Billion years of its existence.
Physicists can't even agree on the shape of the universe, let alone the exact size or age. There are still, in this day and age, serious physicists who believe the edge of the universe ends with empty space. Mind you, try explaining to them that that would put us in the exact centre of the universe and they'll start complaining that we simply can't see the outer bounds of the universe. Actually, it's entirely possible that when we look so far in one direction we eventually see what is on the other side; and we're simply mistaking it for being within the bounds of the universe when it's actually past the radius of the universe (the universe could be significantly smaller than we think it to be).
In any case, the universe exists to support life, it would have no purpose otherwise and nobody would see it, therefore it wouldn't exist (and if it did it would have no reason for doing so). If you built yourself a time-machine and went back in time 4.3 Billion years to the time that the Earth was formed, there is nowhere in the universe where you could survive; even if you brought the entire Earth with you. We don't live in a linear universe, we live in an expanding universe, one that cannot sustain life forever. If you were to travel forward in time 4.3 Billion years, and you brought the entire Earth exactly how it is now with you and you could place it anywhere in the universe, again life could not survive. Physics as we know it only works the way it does at this moment when the universe has cooled enough -but not too much - where the universe has expanded enough - but not too much - to make sustaining life possible. 4.3 Billion years from now, in the past or the present, the laws of physics as we know them could not do with carbon what they're able to do in this window where life is actually possible.
You're becoming more incoherent every time you post. I'm not even sure what your point is: you believe in an old outdated theory of Physics that's been disproven because if you jump out a window "gravity" will kill you??
Last edited:
Jesus was black.
Beleive what you want, I am not going to have a pathic word definition war with you, a 2 year old would understand what I have said.
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
If it was a true fact it would be a fact, there would be no argument.
If it was a true fact it would be a fact, there would be no argument.
You're forgetting that Jesus was black.
And he whips his hair back and forth.
And he whips his hair back and forth.
What you are not understanding is Science IS theory, but the difference is science uses evidence and observation to build these theories. We put them into practice and then try and find out if they are true or false. If there happens to be some flaw in the theory, we again observe and theorize until we find the right viable answer (not THE answer). Science can't say something is 100% fact, because we don't know. In examples of how the Earth was created, we have a pretty strong idea of how it was formed through scientific method, but without actually being there at the time, we can't 100% know EVERYTHING.
This is where science and religion are similar. Religion on the other hand though only has faith to go off. You have faith that a god exists. Your religion is another viable theory that explains why everything works the way it does, only difference is, your theory doesn't provide evidence [what you've shown is not evidence, it's written materials by humans over thousands of years which is diluted]. - this is why I find it annoying when people are forcing their religious propaganda down peoples' throats claiming it to be the word of god, to be fact.
And since you're saying Science theory isn't fact, neither is your religion.
This is where science and religion are similar. Religion on the other hand though only has faith to go off. You have faith that a god exists. Your religion is another viable theory that explains why everything works the way it does, only difference is, your theory doesn't provide evidence [what you've shown is not evidence, it's written materials by humans over thousands of years which is diluted]. - this is why I find it annoying when people are forcing their religious propaganda down peoples' throats claiming it to be the word of god, to be fact.
And since you're saying Science theory isn't fact, neither is your religion.
All the books of the NT were written within living memory of Christ. I want to see EVIDENCE that any of the 66 books are diluted; considering that the OT and NT are the best preserved historical texts in the world...
Theory: An explanation of how things work. Theories can be correct, they can be incorrect, or they can be ambiguous.
Fact: Something that we can verify as correct.
Evidence: Something that helps us verify theories as fact.
Over the last few hundred years we've gathered enough evidence to conclusively say that the Theories of Evolution (and yes, Gravity) are fact.
If you don't understand this, you're an idiot.
We don't have any evidence that God exists. And if Jesus did exist, he was black.
Fact: Something that we can verify as correct.
Evidence: Something that helps us verify theories as fact.
Over the last few hundred years we've gathered enough evidence to conclusively say that the Theories of Evolution (and yes, Gravity) are fact.
If you don't understand this, you're an idiot.
We don't have any evidence that God exists. And if Jesus did exist, he was black.
Newtonian gravity is false, as I previously stated. Gravity is merely a property of space-time as described by GR (and QM's gravity is not just incompatible with GR's it's provably incorrect on the larger scale). There's an "effect" of Gravity, but there is no FORCE that is gravity as originally envisioned by Newton. It seems we agree here.
You did not address my point. Your assumption that the Bible is "diluted" is incorrect unless you have... EVIDENE. You are saying that the texts have been altered over time, this is absurd. Those claims should have been put to rest forever with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. If you had said the Septuagint is a non-ideal source I would have readily agreed with you.
