God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Thief]

It is not "word play", thief.

The context is quite clear. If you are going to use the term "theory" in science discussion or debate, then you need to understand the proper scientific definition to "scientific theory", and not simply use the ordinary definitions from ordinary dictionary.

You have claimed that you like science, and you have claimed that you high scoring tested student, and yet you have continued to use the terms very loosely like "theory", "evidence", "proof", "fact", etc, and not used them in the proper context, just demonstrate that you are either stubbornly ignorant (in relation to science) or you are deliberately trying to mislead us because of your biased religious belief.

leibowde84 gave you the proper definition to "scientific theory" and that you reject his source for ordinary definition to "theory", demonstrate two things about you:

1. You don't like or love science, so you have claimed.
2. And that you will only dishonestly scientific terms with scientific definition and context, only when it suit you.

For instance, you used the term quite "experiment" quite loosely.

Genesis 2 is not scientific experiment because experiment require testing or observation against statement or prediction to acquire knowledge.

Nothing in Genesis 2 demonstrate it is a test or experiment. Nothing in Genesis 2 show that it is interested in acquiring knowledge through observation (experiment, testing or evidence).

You are fraud, thief. Until you can stop lying to us and to yourself, you are dishonest as the name you use for yourself - "thief".

held a 4.3grde average all the way through education.
a government survey test showed a ranking of superior in science.....

and your denial means nothing to me

 

[McBell]

held a 4.3grde average all the way through education.
a government survey test showed a ranking of superior in science.....

and your denial means nothing to me

For that shoulder you pulled out of socket patting yourself on the back:

 

[Thief]

yeah right.....

 

[outhouse]

held a 4.3grde average all the way through education.

Worthless when applied to imaginative conclusions

 

[Thief]

Worthless when applied to imaginative conclusions

and the imagination is the problem solving part of your mind.
you can solve nothing without it.

now go hide in your history books.....

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

no...it becomes a fact, a law, a known effect of a known cause.
we just keep using the word theory because we humans have a problem of change.

A law in science is a statement or equation that describes some aspect of the Universe. A theory explains some aspect of the Universe. They are simply two different things. It has nothing to do with which is more true.

Laws describe. Theories explain. Remember that.

 

[Thief]

A law in science is a statement or equation that describes some aspect of the Universe. A theory explains some aspect of the Universe. They are simply two different things. It has nothing to do with which is more true.

Laws describe. Theories explain. Remember that.

a theory is an explanation not proven
once proven.....not a theory anymore

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

a theory is an explanation not proven
once proven.....not a theory anymore

No, a hypothesis is an explanation that's not proven. A theory is an explanation that's much more substantiated or proven. A law is not an explanation, but a fundamental description of nature that's well substantiated or proven.

Ask yourself, if a theory is what you say it is, why would the word "hypothesis" exist and be defined how it is in a formal scientific context?

 

[outhouse]

and the imagination is the problem solving part of your mind.
you can solve nothing without it.

And when used out of context you cannot solve the most simple problems

 

[outhouse]

a theory is an explanation not proven
once proven.....not a theory anymore

factually false.

you do not know what your talking about

 

[outhouse]

. A theory is an explanation

.

Yes.

Many theories can never be law by the nature of the theory.

That stops our friend in his tracks when its obvious he does not possess the knowledge at hand


he is just arguing to argue out of desperation, it is his method to proselytize his personal faith

 

[gnostic]

held a 4.3grde average all the way through education.
a government survey test showed a ranking of superior in science.....

That grade average mean absolutely nothing if you can't distinguish between the common everyday usage of the word "theory" and the scientific definition of the word "theory".

You do understand that the meaning are different, don't you?

When I was doing high school physics, chemistry and biology, I had to distinguish the word "weight" when I buy food or when I had to measure myself and when I used the same word in science.

The scale that I measure food in kilogram, but in science we don't use the word when using kilogram as measurement; instead weight in physics is called "mass".

Weight in science is actually the measurement of force, which is equal to mass (kg) multiply by acceleration (m/s2), and the acceleration being gravity (9.807 m/s2). Weight is therefore have the unit newton (N or kg.m/s2).

When using certain term in science, they will sometimes have different meanings, than what we use in non-scientific environment.

And since this forum is a Science and Religion Debates, then if you are arguing FOR or AGAINST science, then you should at the very least understand what THEORY mean in the science world, before you foolishly writing something ignorant.

People who say something as stupid as "evolution is just a theory" just show that they don't understand what SCIENTIFIC THEORY is.

Leibowde84 provided you with a brief, but clear definition of Scientific Theory. Learn it, understand it, use it, so you can stop sounding like a bloody id#@#.

 

[Neo Deist]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

See the Aborigines of Australia...they date back to that continent 45,000+ years ago. The Bible is not literal in any shape or form.

 

[Thief]

theory of God.....
shall we continue?

 

[Thief]

A favored word by those who rely on wordplay......


sub·stan·tial
[səbˈstan(t)SHəl]
ADJECTIVE

1. of considerable importance, size, or worth:
   "a substantial amount of cash"
   synonyms: considerable · real · significant · important · notable

I think it HIGHLY substantial the huge number of persons on this planet.
I think it most considerable that dead things do not beget the living.
I think is it notable that each one of us is becoming unique.

Man is a complete mystery without resolve or purpose......
when you leave God out of the picture.

I consider God....to be real.

 

[metis]

theory of God.....
shall we continue?

Actually, it's not only not a "theory", it isn't even considered a scientific hypothesis. In order to have the latter, there must be some verifiable evidence to indicate that it could be true and, frankly, there really isn't any. For example, if I were to claim that the world is coming to an end tomorrow but I can't provide any evidence for that, this may be my hypothesis but it ain't a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Thief]

Actually, it's not only not a "theory", it isn't even considered a scientific hypothesis. In order to have the latter, there must be some verifiable evidence to indicate that it could be true and, frankly, there really isn't any. For example, if I were to claim that the world is coming to an end tomorrow but I can't provide any evidence for that, this may be my hypothesis but it ain't a scientific hypothesis.

I have posted.....only GOD knows how times.....
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

God doesn't fit in the petri dish.

all you can do is reason.

 

[Thief]

and I have seen several science programs about how the world will end.....and it will.
not a theory

 

[metis]

I have posted.....only GOD knows how times.....
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

God doesn't fit in the petri dish.

all you can do is reason.

But what you are doing is not using "reason" but to using "assumption". However, this does not mean that you are intrinsically wrong in terms of whether there's a creator-god or not.

BTW, if you are supposedly using "reason", then why do you write "God" and not "Gods", or both?

 

[Thief]

But what you are doing is not using "reason" but to using "assumption". However, this does not mean that you are intrinsically wrong in terms of whether there's a creator-god or not.

BTW, if you are supposedly using "reason", then why do you write "God" and not "Gods", or both?

I make assumptions BY reasoning.......
and by reason.....in the scheme of superlatives.....
there is only ONE Almighty