Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255665 |
Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
- 1,849 Replies
You need to check out the Hebrew Biblical translations for the Bible. thats all I was meaning by that. Wow. Some people just don't want to read?
Do you have any links to the translation, I would like to read it.
Do you have any links to the translation, I would like to read it.
here is some history on some early translations of the Bible
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.stm
Here is a better translation of what we were arguing about:
http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/unicorns.htm
(you might want your Bible handy for that one, it refers a lot to It)
And this is a website for fun you can type any words in for translation I just recently found. And more languages that just English to Hebrew.
http://www.stars21.com/translator/english_to_hebrew.html
No Nawton and Einstein alone didn't create their theories they only were the originators.
Actually your completely wrong. Both Newton and Einstein worked completely independently. When Einstein created the theory of relativity it was a theory when he published it. When the apple dropped on newtons head the theory (now law) of gravity was a theory.
I can write something, calling it a law, and as long as no one can prove it wrong, then by that logic, that law is reality.
Law = a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law. Something that naturally occurs. Oh yes, those guys can prove it wrong, just outside of Earth :P
ex: gravity, equal and opposite reactions, (going to be) evolution**.
Okay... I am looking at this diagram and it does not state anywhere that there needs to be more than one person involved in its creation.
Where it says "Test Many"; It's tested many times by many groups of people. People do this everyday.
** How MAY Evolution become a law? Simple. It's a phenomenon of nature. Under certain conditions, which is indeed a constant condition, Evolution occurs. We can take data of the humans collected from centuries ago and compare them to humans of the modern age.
Now then kiddies, if you want to argue about Evolution, first learn about it. No sense basing ignorance into an argument, because it is only folly.
Actually your completely wrong. Both Newton and Einstein worked completely independently. When Einstein created the theory of relativity it was a theory when he published it. When the apple dropped on newtons head the theory (now law) of gravity was a theory.
A scientific theory has to be testable. In science a single person is unable to fully test it. A second person has to be able to take what the first person did retest it and come up with the same results. It's possible in a generic way they were referred to as theories but in science they wouldn't have been regarded as a scientific theory until properly tested i.e. independently tested i.e. tested by someone other then the originator.
The reason for doing this is because the person who came up with the original hypothesis could have a bias to the idea. As such there finding could become tainted.
A scientific theory has to be testable. In science a single person is unable to fully test it. A second person has to be able to take what the first person did retest it and come up with the same results. It's possible in a generic way they were referred to as theories but in science they wouldn't have been regarded as a scientific theory until properly tested i.e. independently tested i.e. tested by someone other then the originator.
No actually that's also wrong. The special and general theories of relativity were considered theories as soon as they were published by the scientific community because as Xervicx said some theories cant be proven. All the proof that is and was necessary were all just written down by Einstein.
[quote=Agoff1101]No actually that's also wrong. The special and general theories of relativity were considered theories as soon as they were published by the scientific community because as Xervicx said some theories cant be proven. All the proof that is and was necessary were all just written down by Einstein.[/quote]
[quote=MageGrayWolf]It's possible in a generic way they were referred to as theories but in science they wouldn't have been regarded as a scientific theory until properly tested i.e. independently tested[/quote]
but you don't understand, he thinks that Einstein writing down why it makes sense is enough to make it a theory.
He just misworded that because he's not smart. he said earlier
In science a single person is unable to fully test it. A second person has to be able to take what the first person did retest it and come up with the same results.
he meant to say both needed to be done
Einstein wrote it down and tested it many, many times. The point about theories is to test it to make sure there aren't any conditions that could prove it false, also to make the theory is as specific as possible; there can be no vagueness in any theory to make its credibility shrink. Even after Einstein published it and died, many years later, people are still testing his theory(ies), making sure there are no conditions that disprove it and that it is as credible as it was made. What happens if it is disproven? Just like the chart implies--it goes back to a hypothesis and is retested for different variables.
Xervicx said some theories cant be proven. All the proof that is and was necessary were all just written down by Einstein.
but you don't understand, he thinks that Einstein writing down why it makes sense is enough to make it a theory.
Um, what? Are you talking about yourself or me here?
If me, I never said it was just Einstein writing it out on his own made it a theory. That would go against my statement that a single person can't create a scientific theory.
[quote]In science a single person is unable to fully test it. A second person has to be able to take what the first person did retest it and come up with the same results.
he meant to say both needed to be done[/quote]
Rereading that I can see how it could be a bit misleading. Your right both needs to be done is a more accurate way to put it. However this doesn't change my statement any.
All this theory talk compels me to, yet again, point out that calling something a "theory" does not have negative connotations in the scientific community.
Theories try to explain why things work. That's why there's a theory of gravity. We're not really sure why there's gravity, but we know that there is.
A law, as has been pointed out, is a descriptive set of axioms to describe a state of nature. This is also how gravity can be a law, because we know this phenomenon invariably occurs.
Laws are explained by theories, but that doesn't mean a theory has a lesser standing than anything else.
Either evolution is true, or the scientific community has been greatly deceived. Any theist wanting to preserve intellectual integrity needs to simply accept evolution and move towards a creationary/evolution hybrid that has become so popular.
Denying that evolution is just ignorant. You can question exactly how it happened, but questioning that it happened is just ... idiotic.
K, something I've heard alot around here about Religon is that is was made to explain the 'unexplainable'.
So then what does that make science?
Just think about it. Really think about it. Newton must have had the thought; "Why do we stick on the ground?"
Poof, the Law of Gravity.
I'm not saying that I don't belive in gravity. That would be raither silly.
But the same thing can go for the big bang/evolution. Darwin must have thought; "Where did humans come from?"
Poof. Evolution. Darwin made it so it could explain the 'unexplainable'
All this theory talk compels me to, yet again, point out that calling something a "theory" does not have negative connotations in the scientific community.
Your absolutely right. a theory in science is really the highest thing you can have in science.
Just think about it. Really think about it. Newton must have had the thought; "Why do we stick on the ground?"
Poof, the Law of Gravity.
No it wasn't poof the law of gravity, have you even been paying attention here?
Okay you want God to fit scientifically then you can go back use that chart I posted as a guide (it's on page 34) and step by step show us.
So the first thing to do is to make an observation of Gods existence.
Even though that guide doesn't show it your next step would be to test your observation.
I already know you really already have your hypothesis that the God of the Christian Bible exists. So test it.
If it passes your test we should be able to take that test recreate it and come up with the same results.
If it make it that far (which I'm doubting it will) now we have a theory that God exists!
So the next step would be to test that theory, building and improving upon on it.
Good Evening, OK, I've been researching both sides "Bible vs Science" and because of copyrights/permission(s) of use I'll will read everything and get back to you as to which sites give the most comprehensive information.
Duplicates bug me, I don't like repeating myself much less anyone else and most of the articles I've been logging onto use each other's information.
I especially like the NASA web site but then I've grown up watching all of the lunar missions. Conversely, I found the Bible Archaeology web site equally fascinating. If needed I'll start a new thread, "Bible vs Science".
cyl.
Thread is locked!