If Jesus was God ...

That big bang and big crunch are not yet proven. It is still a theory meaning the status is still conjectural w/o sufficient evidence...

I got so tired of the stupid misuse of the work "theory" by the zealots of Chico's ilk that I'd posted a seperate thread for it: http://www.conflictingviews.com/t2351/.

Guess what? None of these types dared to refute it. Or maybe they just couldn't understand it. Maybe I need to throw in a couple of "verily"s, 'thou"s and "smite"s to grab their attention.

you misuses the scientific meaning of the word "theory"

"facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome"

-http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Are there any facts that you can enumerate re big bang/crunch? If there are facts then it is not a theories anymore, they are absolutely true and you can count on me to be one of you who believe. But if you can not prove otherewise you will die in your sin according to the Bible.

I got so tired of the stupid misuse of the work "theory" by the zealots of Chico's ilk that I'd posted a seperate thread for it: http://www.conflictingviews.com/t2351/.

Guess what? None of these types dared to refute it. Or maybe they just couldn't understand it. Maybe I need to throw in a couple of "verily"s, 'thou"s and "smite"s to grab their attention.

Theories must be supported by evidences and facts to support their claims and if substantial evidences and facts are gathered then it is aboslutely true and correct. If no evidences and facts are gathered then they will remain a theories forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever....

[SIZE="6"]...that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition."[/SIZE]

what part of.....

"facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."

.....didn't you understand?

Yes, facts and theories are different things.. If there are facts they are not theories and if there are theories there are no facts....... SIMPLE

Yes, facts and theories are different things.. If there are facts they are not theories and if there are theories there are no facts....... SIMPLE

[SIZE="6"]...that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition."[/SIZE]

Why do scientist did not correct Webster. Ask Webster and question him why the explanation of theory is like that.

For your understanding, Theory according to Webster is 1. a group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena 2. an explanation whose status is still conjecture.

So what is proposition according to Webster. Proposition is the act of proposing or a plan proposed. and conjecture is the formation of an opinion w/out sufficient evidence.

This will conclude that THEORY is proposition only w/out sufficient evidence. This is according to Webster. Why not question Webster about this????

Seriously are your english skills limited?


[SIZE="5"]...not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty[/SIZE]

Is this all you can say? None sense.... Is your knowledge limited. Or you have nothing more to say..... My english skills maybe limited by my knowledge is not.... Speak up what you know or shut up if you have nothing to say about the subject....

because the definition of "Theory" changes depending on what field of
knowledge you are talking about...


THIS IS FOM THE ENCYCLOPEDIA:
"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition."

>
>

source: theory: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com

Theories must be supported by evidences and facts to support their claims and if substantial evidences and facts are gathered then it is aboslutely true and correct. If no evidences and facts are gathered then they will remain a theories forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever....

Chico, the problem here is that you are looking for an absolute and there is no absolute. Science acknowledges that and so desists anymore from defining laws. Even after there is evidence and fact on hand, the matter in question is still left termed as a theory for ever and ever and ever (you are right!). Why? Because science expects there to be changes in the future or even a complete overthrow of the reigning theory.

We are very comfortable with that. A theory today , gone tomorrow , no problem as long as its discard was a consequence of a proper scientific investigation.

The only thing sacrosant is the modus operandi of scientific investigation. That is all that matters. Follow that path and you will arrive at the truth. If not today, then tomorrow. Owe no alligence to any dogma, be it biblical or evolution. Our job is to search for th truth objectively and educate ourselves thus for ourselves and the good of others.

Right now, the most plausable explaination available to me for life on earth is evolution. The fact that it is the fundamental bulwark for microbiology based on which our existing medical advances are being made gives me more confidence in the theory.

HOWEVER, should there be better and more conclusive evidence otherwise, I will discard evolution in a heartbeat and proceed to accept the new evidence.

I hope you can better appreciate our position now. I am not asking you to agree with it. Just to better understand where we come from.

Thanks & regards

If there is no absolute then why do we need to believe? For me if there is no absolute, I will just believe in nothing than defend something uncertain and when conclusive evidence was discovered then I will start to believe.