To the Non Believers.

[Danny Heim]

I know this is your opinion, but can you prove any of these claims?

Common sense is my best claim. Besides, it's conceptual. How can one prove such a thing as this? Actually, I'm not sure what I am saying is in the terms of "Claims". I am assuming our need to evolve is obvious by the pattern of continual decay we are on. Our technology is not surpassing its byproducts, and to the point that we now know that by 2100 the planet may become uninhabitable.

Realize I am using the term loosely, evolve that is. I could say we need to rise to a "higher consciousness" instead. Scientifically that would make it more accurate as far as we know now. Forgive me if I’ve lead you into the science of this by using the term "evolve".

This need to evolve is not just for the joy of it. In other words, we not would not be doing this out of a choice that we wish to evolve because it's a good thing to do. Instead, we are at the brink of our own demise (in geologic time, 100 years is not much time out of the 8 million we've been around) and now are forced to evolve, or raise our species to a higher awareness, it's that or perish.

To prove this I guess I'd say read the papers. Read the science on climate change. Look at the volatility of our markets, war is amuck...the list is long. In short, we are in the tipping over stage in geologic time. What is happening in religion is the root cause of these conditions we are in. Even environmentally. Our collective focus got off on things like Hell and having dominion and all that stuff, and we forgot to take care of the most vital thing, our species itself. Religion has a devouring effect, it clogs the collective mind and stunts its growth. We need to evolve beyond it or it needs to evolve either one.

 

[S-word]

Wow. Literary genius.

We poets are allowed to take certain libities with the language, don't cha know, but that you for the compliment.



You what? You do realize that the supervolcano explosions in the past have caused mass extinctions of life.

Yep! Like the poem says, "A few survivors of the human race are all that could be found." Terrible things, those natural disasters.

Save us? It's going to freaking kill us.

Well, a lot of us anyways, that's what happens in them natural disasters.

And by the by, you aren't going to trigger a volcano by dropping atomic bombs in the Middle East. Considering the distance of the Middle East from any volcanic plate boundaries, and the fact that all the countries bombing Israel are the ones next to Israel, so they unlikely to use gigantic nukes for fear of getting fallout over their own countries...yep, basically, your hypothesis is bollocks.

With todays technology you can chuck them Bang, bangs a long, long, way, or just send in some suicide bombers to put a couple of big ones together in the countries who support Israel.

Oh, yeah, the same scriptures divinely influenced by a pyschotic God who commands genocide and slaughter of surrounding tribes?

Hey matey, you dont believe that dreams or the Holy scriptures hold any substance so don't you worry about it, no need for you to make any preparations, if it happens it happens, and by the way, Yellow Stone will blow one day, but who knows when?

Numbers 24: 17, “A king, like a bright star, will arise in that Nation. Like a comet he will come from Israel. He will strike the leaders of Moab and beat down all the people of Seth. He will conquer his enemies in Edom and make their land his property. While Israel continues victorious. The Nation of Israel will trample them down and wipe out the last survivors.” most Christians somehow (which is beyond my ability to comprehend) believe that this prophecy was fulfilled 2000 years ago when the Lord sent, in his name “Who I Am,” the young Israelite Jesus, to do and say only that which he was commanded by the Lord God our saviour, who said; “They will look upon me and see the one who they pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child etc.”

Isaiah 63: 1-6, “Who is this coming from the city of Bozrah in Edom? Who is this so splendidly dressed in red, marching along in power and strength?” It is the Lord, powerful to save, coming to announce his victory. “Why is his clothing so red, like that of a man who tramples grapes to make wine?”
The Lord answers, “I have trampled the nations like grapes and no one came to help me. I trampled them in my anger, and their blood has stained all my clothing. I decided that the time to save my people had come; it was time to punish their enemies, I was amazed when I looked and saw that there was no one to help me. But my anger made me strong, and I won the victory myself. In my anger I trampled whole nations and shattered them, I poured out their life’s blood on the earth.”

See Zechariah 14. The Lord will come to fight for his people Israel as he has fought in times past and from within the inner most sanctuary of his tabernacle (The kingdom of God is within you) which temporary tabernacle is the body of mankind, he will fight the enemies of Israel; those Nations who surround Jerusalem in their attempt to drive God's chosen people into the sea. The Lord will throw them into a state of total confusion, and the weapons of destruction with which they would destroy Israel, he will cause them to turn upon their own allies and they shall suffer a terrible disease, the soft tissue such as their eyes and tongues will melt in their sockets, and their radiated flesh cooked to the bone will slide from their bodies while still standing. Then all the surviving Nations will send their representatives each year to Jerusalem in the land of Israel, to worship and pay tribute to the Lord who will rule the whole world with justice and woe betide those who refuse to do so.

Then all the godless people of this world, and all those, who in their cathedrals, of stone, marble or crystal, which sing and dance with their eyes and hands raised to the heavens in worship of a god they neither know or understand, will bow down and worship the God of the Bible. Malachi 3: 1-2; The lord Almighty answers, “I will send my messenger to prepare the way for me. Then the Lord you are looking for will suddenly come to his Temple. The messenger you long to see will come and proclaim my covenant.” But who will be able to endure the day when he comes? Who will be able to survive when he appears?
Concerning the war to end all wars; Joel 3: 14-17; “Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake, but the Lord will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.
So shall ye know that I am the Lord your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy and foreigners will never again conquer it. (This has not occurred as yet).

 

[S-word]

Wow. Literary genius.

We poets are allowed to take certain libities with the language, don't cha know, but thank you for the compliment.



You what? You do realize that the supervolcano explosions in the past have caused mass extinctions of life.

Yep! Like the poem says, "A few survivors of the human race are all that could be found." Terrible things, those natural disasters.

Save us? It's going to freaking kill us.

Well, a lot of us anyways, that's what happens in them natural disasters.

And by the by, you aren't going to trigger a volcano by dropping atomic bombs in the Middle East. Considering the distance of the Middle East from any volcanic plate boundaries, and the fact that all the countries bombing Israel are the ones next to Israel, so they unlikely to use gigantic nukes for fear of getting fallout over their own countries...yep, basically, your hypothesis is bollocks.

With todays technology you can chuck them big Bang, bangs a long, long, way, or just send in some suicide bombers to put a couple of big ones together in the countries that support Israel.

Oh, yeah, the same scriptures divinely influenced by a pyschotic God who commands genocide and slaughter of surrounding tribes?

Hey matey, you dont believe that dreams or the Holy scriptures hold any substance so don't you worry about it, no need for you to make any preparations, if it happens it happens, and by the way, Yellow Stone will blow one day, but who knows when?

Numbers 24: 17, “A king, like a bright star, will arise in that Nation. Like a comet he will come from Israel. He will strike the leaders of Moab and beat down all the people of Seth. He will conquer his enemies in Edom and make their land his property. While Israel continues victorious. The Nation of Israel will trample them down and wipe out the last survivors.” most Christians somehow (which is beyond my ability to comprehend) believe that this prophecy was fulfilled 2000 years ago when the Lord sent, in his name, “Who I Am,” the young Israelite Jesus, to do and say only that which he was commanded by the Lord God our saviour, who said; “They will look upon me and see the one who they pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child etc.”

Isaiah 63: 1-6, “Who is this coming from the city of Bozrah in Edom? Who is this so splendidly dressed in red, marching along in power and strength?” It is the Lord, powerful to save, coming to announce his victory. “Why is his clothing so red, like that of a man who tramples grapes to make wine?”
The Lord answers, “I have trampled the nations like grapes and no one came to help me. I trampled them in my anger, and their blood has stained all my clothing. I decided that the time to save my people had come; it was time to punish their enemies, I was amazed when I looked and saw that there was no one to help me. But my anger made me strong, and I won the victory myself. In my anger I trampled whole nations and shattered them, I poured out their life’s blood on the earth.”

See Zechariah 14. The Lord will come to fight for his people Israel as he has fought in times past and from within the inner most sanctuary of his tabernacle (The kingdom of God is within you) which temporary tabernacle is the body of mankind, he will fight the enemies of Israel; those Nations who surround Jerusalem in their attempt to drive God's chosen people into the sea. The Lord will throw them into a state of total confusion, and the weapons of destruction with which they would destroy Israel, he will cause them to turn upon their own allies and they shall suffer a terrible disease, the soft tissue such as their eyes and tongues will melt in their sockets, and their radiated flesh cooked to the bone will slide from their bodies while still standing. Then all the surviving Nations will send their representatives each year to Jerusalem in the land of Israel, to worship and pay tribute to the Lord who will rule the whole world with justice and woe betide those who refuse to do so.

Then all the godless people of this world, and all those, who in their cathedrals, of stone, marble or crystal, which sing and dance with their eyes and hands raised to the heavens in worship of a god they neither know or understand, will bow down and worship the God of the Bible.

Malachi 3: 1-2; The lord Almighty answers, “I will send my messenger to prepare the way for me. Then the Lord you are looking for will suddenly come to his Temple. The messenger you long to see will come and proclaim my covenant.” But who will be able to endure the day when he comes? Who will be able to survive when he appears?

Concerning the war to end all wars; Joel 3: 14-17; “Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake, but the Lord will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.
So shall ye know that I am the Lord your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy and foreigners will never again conquer it. (This has not occurred as yet and according to all your atheist mates, aint ever gonna happen, so there's no need for you to fret about it.)

 

[TheHappyTraveler]

It's making me mad that no one has explained Scientific Investigation yet.

It's observation to HYPOTHESIS to experimentation to THEORY

observation = watching and wondering
hypothesis = guess
experimentation = putting hypothesis through testing
theory = when hypothesis is 100% correct (proven)

I can hypothesize that 3+2=pig, but no matter how much I test this hypothesis. it will never turn out to be true. So I Hypothesize that 3+2=5, and it will turn out to be true. Something is only called a theory when a hypothesis is proven to be absolute.

I think a five year old could now understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, let alone a drunk adult

 

[Badran]

Common sense is my best claim. Besides, it's conceptual. How can one prove such a thing as this? Actually, I'm not sure what I am saying is in the terms of "Claims". I am assuming our need to evolve is obvious by the pattern of continual decay we are on. Our technology is not surpassing its byproducts, and to the point that we now know that by 2100 the planet may become uninhabitable.

Realize I am using the term loosely, evolve that is. I could say we need to rise to a "higher consciousness" instead. Scientifically that would make it more accurate as far as we know now. Forgive me if I’ve lead you into the science of this by using the term "evolve".

This need to evolve is not just for the joy of it. In other words, we not would not be doing this out of a choice that we wish to evolve because it's a good thing to do. Instead, we are at the brink of our own demise (in geologic time, 100 years is not much time out of the 8 million we've been around) and now are forced to evolve, or raise our species to a higher awareness, it's that or perish.

To prove this I guess I'd say read the papers. Read the science on climate change. Look at the volatility of our markets, war is amuck...the list is long. In short, we are in the tipping over stage in geologic time. What is happening in religion is the root cause of these conditions we are in. Even environmentally. Our collective focus got off on things like Hell and having dominion and all that stuff, and we forgot to take care of the most vital thing, our species itself. Religion has a devouring effect, it clogs the collective mind and stunts its growth. We need to evolve beyond it or it needs to evolve either one.

Well, since it is your personal theory based on what you conclude from collective things around us, then i have no objection on most of it.

I would ask you just about the part about religion being a disadvantage, why?

 

[S-word]

It's making me mad that no one has explained Scientific Investigation yet.

It's observation to HYPOTHESIS to experimentation to THEORY

observation = watching and wondering
hypothesis = guess
experimentation = putting hypothesis through testing
theory = when hypothesis is 100% correct (proven)

I can hypothesize that 3+2=pig, but no matter how much I test this hypothesis. it will never turn out to be true. So I Hypothesize that 3+2=5, and it will turn out to be true. Something is only called a theory when a hypothesis is proven to be absolute.

I think a five year old could now understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, let alone a drunk adult

I suppose in theory some might see your statment as correct, but in reality you are seen to be incorrect.

The Big Bang model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. Now according to Your defination of "Theory " as seen below.

quote=TheHappyTraveler; observation = watching and wondering
hypothesis = guess
experimentation = putting hypothesis through testing
theory = when hypothesis is 100% correct (proven)


The hypothesis that the universe began with a Big Bang that spatially separated the singulariy of origin, which has become this universe and all the lif-forms within, of which some life forms have evolved outstanding intellect, now you would have us believe that hypothesis, which is now the "Big Bang Theory," has been proven to be 100% correct: Is this correct?

Theoretical: (1) Pertaining to or based on theory. (2) Restricted to theory, as: a. lacking verification from experience or experiment. b. lacking practical application. Compare applied. (3) Existing only in theory; hypothetical or speculative.

 

[dogsgod]

I suppose in theory some might see your statment as correct, but in reality you are seen to be incorrect.

The Big Bang model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. Now according to Your defination of "Theory " as seen below.

quote=TheHappyTraveler; observation = watching and wondering
hypothesis = guess
experimentation = putting hypothesis through testing
theory = when hypothesis is 100% correct (proven)


The hypothesis that the universe began with a Big Bang that spatially separated the singulariy of origin, which has become this universe and all the lif-forms within, of which some life forms have evolved outstanding intellect, now you would have us believe that hypothesis, which is now the "Big Bang Theory," has been proven to be 100% correct: Is this correct?

Theoretical: (1) Pertaining to or based on theory. (2) Restricted to theory, as: a. lacking verification from experience or experiment. b. lacking practical application. Compare applied. (3) Existing only in theory; hypothetical or speculative.

What TheHappyTraveler said.

 

[Commoner]

Theoretical: (1) Pertaining to or based on theory. (2) Restricted to theory, as: a. lacking verification from experience or experiment. b. lacking practical application. Compare applied. (3) Existing only in theory; hypothetical or speculative.

Try "Scientific theory". As you've been explained a gazillion times, "theory" means something else in science.

Or do you want to continue being stubborn and dishonest?

 

[Luminous]

So get behind me you charlatan priests and you shams
For I am true to My God, to MY GOD, “Who I Am.”

HA!

quote=Luminous; there is no condemnation by me, only condemnation by yourself.

S-words Response; I could never and would never condemn “Who I Am,” I do whatever he commands of me, for I know the spirit of my ancestors, human and pre-human of which “Who I Am” is their compilation, has learned through suffering what is good and what is bad. No my friend, I am a believer, and it is you who condemn me as a non-believer.

you may choose, by your desires, to live in the shadow of the darkness of your ancestors thoughts. however, i can assure that IT comands nothing from you. it is because of this fact the the condemnation is only your own. we do not learn from suffering what is good and what is bad... suffering stems from desires, and good and bad are relative. instead, we can learn from experience, what is cause and what is effect. and by desire, we can choose what is "good" and what is "bad".

quote=Luminous; That which your tricked and weary eyes see as arrows are nothing but kisses blown in your way.

S-words Response; As kisses blown from the lips of Judas Iscariot.

Jadas Iscariot: according to Christian tradition, he is the wrongly vilified savior of humanity. because of his mandated actions in accordance with God's will, which is ALWAYS done, the Jewish God was able to deny itself all further sacrafises.

quote=Luminous; A soul as filled with God's love, can do nothing but share it.

S-words Response; A soul as filled with God's love, does not condemn his brother as a non-believer

A soul filled with God's love, does not condemn non-believers at all.

quote=Luminous; It is true that the Lord God leads you,

S-words Response; You can bet you sweet bippy on that my friend

for the Will of God is always done.

quote=Luminous; but whether you deviated is still in question.

S-words Response; Only in the mind of those who belong to the body, whose spiritual head stands before God day and night condemning his brothers.

How Ironic... if not hypocritical

quote=Luminous; clearly, non of us are perfect creatures, and you were not born in this world with the view you now hold. but were infact, born agnostic.

S-words Response; I was chosen before this world began my dear friend

indeed you were. however, the fact remains that you were born agnostic.

 

[Luminous]

I suppose in theory some might see your statment as correct, but in reality you are seen to be incorrect.

The Big Bang model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. Now according to Your defination of "Theory " as seen below.

quote=TheHappyTraveler; observation = watching and wondering
hypothesis = guess
experimentation = putting hypothesis through testing
theory = when hypothesis is 100% correct (proven)


The hypothesis that the universe began with a Big Bang that spatially separated the singulariy of origin, which has become this universe and all the lif-forms within, of which some life forms have evolved outstanding intellect, now you would have us believe that hypothesis, which is now the "Big Bang Theory," has been proven to be 100% correct: Is this correct?

Theoretical: (1) Pertaining to or based on theory. (2) Restricted to theory, as: a. lacking verification from experience or experiment. b. lacking practical application. Compare applied. (3) Existing only in theory; hypothetical or speculative.

Clearly you are a great poet...but a schoolar you are not. Read up on the Big Bang Theory and on why scientists still strive to model the beginning of the universe. nothing is proven 100%. a scientific theory is the best possible hypothesis, theories are studied and modified, as far as im informed.

 

[DeitySlayer]

S-Word, just a little tip:

A scientific theory is not the same as a layman's dictionary definition of a theory.

Scientific hypothesis = layman's theory

Scientific theory = layman's fact

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

S-Word, just a little tip:

A scientific theory is not the same as a layman's dictionary definition of a theory.

Scientific hypothesis = layman's theory

Scientific theory = layman's fact

Gravity is a theory yet when i drop my keys they never seem to fly off into space.

 

[Commoner]

observation = watching and wondering
hypothesis = guess
experimentation = putting hypothesis through testing
theory = when hypothesis is 100% correct (proven)

That's misinformation (well, I'm guessing exaggeration)... There is no such thing as "100% correct".

 

[S-word]

What TheHappyTraveler said.

S-words Response; What TheHappyTraveler said, was that once an hypothesis has been proven to be one hundred% correct, it then becomes a theory, (theory = when hypothesis is 100% correct (proven) )which means, according to his definition of Scientific theory, all scientific theories must be 100% correct.

If he is correct, then the Big Bang theory, must be 100% proven. The Big bang theory states that the universe and all therein including the intellect that has and is continuing to evolve and will supposedly evolve beyond the intellect of mankind, originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion (The exact time of the Big Bang has not been 100% proven as yet) ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of Matter at extreme density and temperature. Do you agree that the Big Bang theory is 100% correct, or do you believe that it is still only a hypothesis?

And what about the “Steady State Theory,” if the hypothesis that the universe maintains a constant average density with matter created to fill the void left by galaxies that are receding from each other, has been 100% proved, why has the “Steady State Theory” been abandoned in favour of the "Big Bang Theory."

We won’t even bother to mention the major scientific “Theory” of Nicolaus Copernicus which was published in 1543, the year of his death, after which, Ptolemy’s “Theory,” that the earth was the stationary centre of the universe, which was the prevailing scientific “Theory” among the astronomers in Europe in the days of Copernicus, was abandoned. No one’s going to argue that Copernicus’s scientific Hypothesis/Theory was 100% correct (Proven).

Some scientific theories (not all, but some theories) can incorporate facts and tested hypothesis, these are generally referred to as being, “True in fact and theory” which makes a distinction between what is proven fact, and what is merely theory.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Quoting early Greek science doesn't show anything. There was no empirical testing or rigorous standard of evidence in those days.

 

[Commoner]

S-words Response; What TheHappyTraveler said, was that once an hypothesis has been proven to be one hundred% correct, it then becomes a theory, (theory = when hypothesis is 100% correct (proven) )which means, according to his definition of Scientific theory, all scientific theories must be 100% correct.

If he is correct, then the Big Bang theory, must be 100% proven. The Big bang theory states that the universe and all therein including the intellect that has and is continuing to evolve and will supposedly evolve beyond the intellect of mankind, originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion (The exact time of the Big Bang has not been 100% proven as yet) ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of Matter at extreme density and temperature. Do you agree that the Big Bang theory is 100% correct, or do you believe that it is still only a hypothesis?

And what about the “Steady State Theory,” if the hypothesis that the universe maintains a constant average density with matter created to fill the void left by galaxies that are receding from each other, has been 100% proved, why has the “Steady State Theory” been abandoned in favour of the "Big Bang Theory."

We won’t even bother to mention the major scientific “Theory” of Nicolaus Copernicus which was published in 1543, the year of his death, after which, Ptolemy’s “Theory,” that the earth was the stationary centre of the universe, which was the prevailing scientific “Theory” among the astronomers in Europe in the days of Copernicus, was abandoned. No one’s going to argue that Copernicus’s scientific Hypothesis/Theory was 100% correct (Proven).

Some scientific theories (not all, in fact very few theories) can incorporate facts and tested hypothesis, these are generally referred to as being, “True in fact and theory” which makes a distinction between what is proven fact, and what is merely theory.

S-word, there's a concept I'd like you to understand a little better. Yes, science changes - from Newtonian physics (classical mechanics) to quantum mechanics. You could argue that Newtonian physics is wrong - and really, it is. But it is only wrong on a very different scale than what the model was supposed to describe. You can still throw a ball in the air and watch it behave exactly like newtonian physics predicts.

With a scientific theory always comes, implied, a certain scale, a certain level of detail that the model is supposed to work with. Theories that have now been abandoned are not wrong, per se, it is the scale of our investigation that has changed. Examine a city street and it is flat, examine a continent and it is curved, examine the earth and it is a sphere. These things are all true, all in different contexts, all on different scales and with different level of detail.

So, yes, with new data, our conclusions might change - but that does not make the theory false - it is only false if we try to apply it to a new scale - that's why we need a new model that better describes the new area of investigation. That's not the same as the old theory being wrong.

Do you see what I'm saying? Of course, I agree with you that any kind of 100% certainty is out of the question. Anywhere, not just in science - there's always the possibility of error - but barring that, a scientific theory is as close to certainty as anything we know. You just have to understand exactly where the model applies and not view it as "absolute".

 

[S-word]

Gravity is a theory yet when i drop my keys they never seem to fly off into space.

No matey, Gravity has been a fact ever since the first wave particles, which are the quantum of the liquid like electromagnetic energy that was spewed out in the billions of degree with the Big Bang, were attracted to each other to form the first sub-atomic particles, which when attracted to each other formed the first Atoms, which when attracted to each other formed the first molecules, which when attracted to each other formed the first galaxies which galactic clusters, when attracted to each other and swallowed by one of the super,duper Black Holes that are scattered throughout the cosmos, form another infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, which will be spatially separated by another Big Bang, from which new galaxies will be created to fill the void that is left by the other galaxies that are speeding out toward the other Great gravitational holes out there in the eternal and boundless cosmos.

Newtons theory which explains gravity, states that any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Which doesn't change the fact that when you drop your keys, they will not fly up into your face, unless you drop them on a trampoline or some such, but that's another scientific theory.

 

[Commoner]

Newtons theory which explains gravity, states that any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Of course, that could be considered false, once you embrace the idea that time/space is curved. "Attraction" really doesn't describe it very well, not anymore.

Gravity, as it was described, is just as "wrong" as anything else.

 

[S-word]

S-word, there's a concept I'd like you to understand a little better. Yes, science changes - from Newtonian physics (classical mechanics) to quantum mechanics. You could argue that Newtonian physics is wrong - and really, it is. But it is only wrong on a very different scale than what the model was supposed to describe. You can still throw a ball in the air and watch it behave exactly like newtonian physics predicts.

With a scientific theory always comes, implied, a certain scale, a certain level of detail that the model is supposed to work with. Theories that have now been abandoned are not wrong, per se, it is the scale of our investigation that has changed. Examine a city street and it is flat, examine a continent and it is curved, examine the earth and it is a sphere. These things are all true, all in different contexts, all on different scales and with different level of detail.

So, yes, with new data, our conclusions might change - but that does not make the theory false - it is only false if we try to apply it to a new scale - that's why we need a new model that better describes the new area of investigation. That's not the same as the old theory being wrong.

Do you see what I'm saying? Of course, I agree with you that any kind of 100% certainty is out of the question. Anywhere, not just in science - there's always the possibility of error - but barring that, a scientific theory is as close to certainty as anything we know. You just have to understand exactly where the model applies and not view it as "absolute".

Correct! All theories are made up according to the available data at that time, and in general, the new theory that supercedes its predecessor is but an evolution of the former. That's why I love the name that I have been given, "I Am Who I Am," For you will never find me today where I was yesterday, and tomorrow You will not find me where I am today, unlike most organised beliefs which are signed and sealed books, which do not evolve with the times. As I have written in my poems.

The Word of God can be likened to a star that's being ever brightened
By the mind of man reaching ever higher, but those who deviate, they're liars
In Gods word man's mind can grow, but those outside, they're like the snow
That settles on the desert sand, amd will melt away before "I AM."

For I am who I am and may I never loose sight
Of the fact that I am who I am day and night
I'm not who I was, nor who I will be
For "Who I Am," is the name that my God gave to me.

Just as the evolution is within the evolving universal body, so too, the evolution is occuring within you, and when the transition or translation from one form to another occures, it can be almost instantious, something like internal combustion, where your mortal corruptible physical body is translated in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, into a brilliant and blinding body of light, such as that of the man "Jesus of Nazareth," who appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus.

 

[S-word]

Of course, that could be considered false, once you embrace the idea that time/space is curved. "Attraction" really doesn't describe it very well, not anymore.

Gravity, as it was described, is just as "wrong" as anything else.

If you believe it to be incorrect, then please feel free to make up your own theory to explain gravity. Perhaps while your doing that, you may be able to supply more data for the evolution of the Supersymmetry theory, that tries to link the four fundamental forces, which according to that theory, were supposed to have emerged separately during the Big Bang.