Well you aren't having much affect so I wonder as to why you bother - unless doing so is just to satisfy your ego.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I am doing what God commands me to do,Well you aren't having much affect so I wonder as to why you bother - unless doing so is just to satisfy your ego.
Or voices in your head do so?
The almighty commands you to make uneducated posts on internet forums?
How did he tell you that he wants you to do that?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Let me mention that the "once saved, always saved" concept is contrary to what the Gospel teaches, plus it is a dangerous believe because it may lull a person into carelessness. Gandhi criticized that when he said that all too many Christians "elevated the man and forgot his message".
I'm sure you believe that. Others have good reason to doubt it.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I was thinking of the evolution/creation forum, sorry for the minor mix up.
In that forum (evolution/creation) more than 3/4 of the posts are from you. I would call that dominating the forum. I stopped clicking on your threads, because it was simply one case after another of you showing ignorance of basic science and logic, as well as an engrained unwillingness to learn from people who knew more on the subjects than you.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There is a lot of evidence against evolution and billions of years and so it does require a number of threads.
gnostic
The Lost One
both statements are laughable because you believe what you are saying, but the truth of the matter I find them to be untrue.
you are lousy with logic, and you are even worse with science.
And if you were to be judged tomorrow I would bet on you would fail to pass - the bear no false witness test.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well why can't you refute the proofs that I have already given?
both statements are laughable because you believe what you are saying, but the truth of the matter I find them to be untrue.
you are lousy with logic, and you are even worse with science.
And if you were to be judged tomorrow I would bet on you would fail to pass - the bear no false witness test.
gnostic
The Lost One
you don’t even understand what proof is, SavedByTheLord .
if you did, you would keep repeating your errors ad nauseum.
proofs are equations, not evidence.
proof doesn’t verify, nor refute any model.
you can only refute model with observations (examples of observations are evidence, experiments & data), not with proofs.
since you don’t even understand the difference between “evidence” & “proof”, you don’t understand science at all. Proofs are for maths.
talking to you is like talking to child who refuses to learn from his mistakes…he just keep repeating same mistakes over and over again.
science “test” a model, science don’t “prove” or “disprove” a model.
if you want to “prove” something then that “maths”, not science.
Do you want to know what proofs look like?
here are some examples of proofs:
F = m a
V = I R
E = m c^2
these equations are proofs, SavedByTheLord. The equations are parts of explanations in scientific theories.
if you test a hypothesis or theory, and the evidence doesn’t support the explanations, then the equations are wrong ( which means the proofs are wrong).
it is staggering how many many creationists keep making the same mistakes, confusing proofs with evidence, when they are not the same things.
of course, like every other creationist, you are going to ignore and repeat the same error in your next reply. Stubborn ignorance is treated like virtue among creationists.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And you need to learn logic.you don’t even understand what proof is, SavedByTheLord .
if you did, you would keep repeating your errors ad nauseum.
proofs are equations, not evidence.
proof doesn’t verify, nor refute any model.
you can only refute model with observations (examples of observations are evidence, experiments & data), not with proofs.
since you don’t even understand the difference between “evidence” & “proof”, you don’t understand science at all. Proofs are for maths.
talking to you is like talking to child who refuses to learn from his mistakes…he just keep repeating same mistakes over and over again.
science “test” a model, science don’t “prove” or “disprove” a model.
if you want to “prove” something then that “maths”, not science.
Do you want to know what proofs look like?
here are some examples of proofs:
F = m aV = I RE = m c^2
these equations are proofs, SavedByTheLord. The equations are parts of explanations in scientific theories.
if you test a hypothesis or theory, and the evidence doesn’t support the explanations, then the equations are wrong ( which means the proofs are wrong).
it is staggering how many many creationists keep making the same mistakes, confusing proofs with evidence, when they are not the same things.
of course, like every other creationist, you are going to ignore and repeat the same error in your next reply. Stubborn ignorance is treated like virtue among creationists.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
If science only has evidence, and no proof, why treat any science theory as dogma, if it has only has circumstantial evidence? The best of the best evidence is still not proof of the truth.
Nobody was around for the BB, so all we have is circumstantial evidence, which is not the same as eye witness proof. It behooves one to be remain open minded, and not just assume any dogma of science is the final truth, or it can become faith and religion, based on circumstantial evidence; science pot calling the religion kettle black.
The role of math also needs to be understood. Math is like a faithful horse than can be led anyway you want. Math proof, in terms of evidence is only as good as the conceptual foundation in which the math is based. For example, in video games we can have infinite lives. This is part of the conceptual foundation for many video games, and it can be supported with computer math, so we can have smooth game play after a character restart.
If we were to take this computer game math, away from the foundation, and assume math is aways pure, we can use it to prove infinite lives, anywhere in nature, by using it to generate our data. This magic trick fools science. It is only appropriate based on its foundation. It is always transferable to other foundations. This is why I am big on examining the conceptual framework of theory and not accepting good looking math, built on a weak foundation, that can moved to become a self serving magic trick.
Casino math takes this illusion effect one step further, by assuming a universal foundation of black boxes and the dice and cards, none of which are natural, but are all manmade. This may apply to factory data, since that is manmade. But climate and weather is natural and does not use black boxes or dice and cards. This is like infinite life math of a game, being taking out of context.
Fuzzy dice data is as circumstantial as it gets. Weak as it is, it is often used as an excuse to force people to obey. Laymen of science often wish to get all to obey; math based on sentimental foundations, such as risk analysis and fear induction.
How is that a meaningful response to what @gnostic told you?????
They told you where you're going wrong and instead of learning you brush off what they tell you by basically putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "na! na! na! I can't hear you!"
You've been given so many opportunities here to learn and improve yourself but you don't want to know
I've been using the internet since 1999 and in that time I've encountered a great many people but you easily take the prize for the most wilfully ignorant person I have ever come across and that's saying a lot!
Can I ask, what do you actually aim to achieve with the dozens of almost identical threads you have started here?
Last edited:
Yerda
Veteran Member
Those are better thought of as relationships between physical quantities described by equations.here are some examples of proofs:
F = m aV = I RE = m c^2
Proofs are more like demonstrations of theorems in maths.
It makes them feel warm and fuzzy
I think it's driven by an anxiety to get into God's good-books, by insecurity
I don't think they are 100% sure that they have been saved by The Lord and want to show how obedient they are
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And you think wrong.
Then why? Why all these threads?
It looks as though you are overly keen to please
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I just tell the truth on this important topic.