I know alot of people avoid thees posts about GOD and Heaven but I just want to know peoples oppions about heaven.Do you belive there is a heaven and if you do what do you think its like?
Well He's not. He kept it up to us to decide whether or not he is real.
Exactly , because he didn't make us robots he gives you choice .
I don't get how evolutionists can say God is not real , because science does not prove it . Yet science does not prove evolution , because to have science you must be there when it happened . And we were not alive billions of years ago .
Exactly , because he didn't make us robots he gives you choice .
I don't get how evolutionists can say God is not real , because science does not prove it . Yet science does not prove evolution , because to have science you must be there when it happened . And we were not alive billions of years ago .
You don't need to have been around 4.6 billion years ago to know that the lithosphere was made when magma/lava cooled, just with evolution we can see it happening.
LOL. Nice video Mage, by the way, exactly WHAT were those news reporters? Legos? I can imagine the mass suicide following people learning all they knew was false.
Yet science does not prove evolution , because to have science you must be there when it happened
Here's the thing, science has disproved many points about the bible, from adam and eve to basic thoughts.
by the way, exactly WHAT were those news reporters? Legos?
I have no idea.
Yet science does not prove evolution
Don't make me break out the debate tactical nuke on you.
because to have science you must be there when it happened
We can observe the evidence left behind and using the facts to arrive at a theory as to what happened that matches those facts.
For instance you are driving along or riding along in a car. You pass an ambulance, a cop car, and a couple of badly damaged vehicles. Based on observations you can conclude that a traffic accident occurred, even though you weren't there to actually see the accident first hand all the evidence fits that theory.
For instance you are driving along or riding along in a car. You pass an ambulance, a cop car, and a couple of badly damaged vehicles. Based on observations you can conclude that a traffic accident occurred, even though you weren't there to actually see the accident first hand all the evidence fits that theory.
Please read one of the countless (at least millions of) scientific studies proving evolution and the zero disproving evolution.
This is the funniest things I've read all day. Your ignorance just amazes me. How about YOU look in any high school science textbook and read where it says evolution is a theory. No idea about how the earth was created can possibly be proven. They're called theories for a reason, people.
Your ignorance just amazes me. How about YOU look in any high school science textbook and read where it says evolution is a theory. No idea about how the earth was created can possibly be proven. They're called theories for a reason, people.
oh my f***ing god! LOL
How stupid can you get! lol!
THEORIES HAVE BEEN PROVEN NUMEROUS TIMES PEOPLE!!!!!!
Theories have been proven many times by other scientists. That is why they are called Theories! You are think of the word "hypothesis" which is one man's educated guess. If his guess is repeated over and over again, and other scientists have gotten the same results; then it is a theory.
Your ignorance is overwhelming. Laws have been proven, theories have not
Your ignorance is overwhelming
laws are the same as theories! Jesus Christ! I learned that in 5th grade science class. Do you even remember the slightest thing about science?! What kind of science class are you taking? Special Ed Science?
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In laymanâs terms, if something is said to be âjust a theory,â it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They donât really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hookâs law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:
Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:
* Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why? * Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing. * Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled. * Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not." * Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time. * In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.
Useful Prediction: If I leave broth open to the air, it will spoil. If I want to keep it from spoiling, I will keep it covered.
Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.
Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.
