Outlaw, that's the definitions of theory is common parlance. In science, definition number five is the closest, but since it's a general dictionary, not a specific scientific dictionary, it's not exact as respect that field of study.
notverylikely
JoinedPosts by notverylikely
-
31
Stephen Hawkings is a nutter for believing in a fantasy
by Mad Dawg instephen hawkings from here:.
in the grand design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously.
we question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality.
-
-
-
109
Feb. 15 Study WT - More creationism and stupidity - A response
by eric356 inwell, the wt is back on it: "today, there is a rising tide of atheistic and evolutionist propaganda dependent on flawed and baseless reasoning.
we should not let this flood of faulty thinking confuse or intimidate us.
" (pg.
-
-
notverylikely
And you cannot PROVE to me that evolution alone has produced the world we live in. I am open to you doing so.
Just because it cannot be proved to you does not mean it cannot be proved. There are still morons that think the earth is flat or that the holocaust never happened. You would fit right in. Willfully ignorant and determined to stay so. It's amazing you are an ex JW.
-
31
Stephen Hawkings is a nutter for believing in a fantasy
by Mad Dawg instephen hawkings from here:.
in the grand design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously.
we question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality.
-
-
notverylikely
If it could be proven..It wouldn`t be a Theory anymore..
Not to be critical, but it's at this point a hypothesis. In science, a theory (different from the everyday term used) is the highest status something can attain.
So, it's a hypothesis at this point :)
-
39
On the day you eat...
by PSacramento insince it has been brought up a few time, i though it cool to post this interpretation of this part of genesis 2:.
http://biologos.org/blog/genesis-creation-and-ancient-interpreters-on-the-day-you-eat-of-it/.
one issue that occupied the attention of many early interpreters is found in genesis 2:16-17, where god warns not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat of it you shall die.. the problem is well known: adam (and eve) did eat of the fruit, but they did not die on that day.
-
-
notverylikely
Well, I think everyone who belongs to Him at once is resurrected or changed (to spirit) when He returns. So if you belong to Him, and have the Holy Spirit, then you have life.
So you don't get life until you die? I guess if I want the cure I have get sick first? Why not just give me the immunization to start with?
Did Jesus never hear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
Since He hasn't returned yet, we don't have Christians who have never died, in the flesh. Yet.
Even Jesus died. He wasn't setting a very good example.
-
39
On the day you eat...
by PSacramento insince it has been brought up a few time, i though it cool to post this interpretation of this part of genesis 2:.
http://biologos.org/blog/genesis-creation-and-ancient-interpreters-on-the-day-you-eat-of-it/.
one issue that occupied the attention of many early interpreters is found in genesis 2:16-17, where god warns not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat of it you shall die.. the problem is well known: adam (and eve) did eat of the fruit, but they did not die on that day.
-
-
notverylikely
Actually, the views that for God 1 day is like 1000 years and vice -versa, show that God is NOT subject to time as we know it, that is the point of those verses.
That clearly shows that god is NOT outside of time. It may, at best, run at a different scale, but he defintely is inside time.
God's "timelines" being applied in a human way is something that the writers did and not correctly as it kept getting pointed out:
God is not subject to time as we know it.
No biblical support. At BEST, as shown above by you example, he is inside time, but perhaps it's flowing at a different rate.
It is not for us or anyoen to put a timeline on God.
He did it himself if indeed the Bible is his inspired word. If he is the begining and the end, that implies a timeline. If a day is equivalent to a thousand years, being part of time is required.
-
39
On the day you eat...
by PSacramento insince it has been brought up a few time, i though it cool to post this interpretation of this part of genesis 2:.
http://biologos.org/blog/genesis-creation-and-ancient-interpreters-on-the-day-you-eat-of-it/.
one issue that occupied the attention of many early interpreters is found in genesis 2:16-17, where god warns not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat of it you shall die.. the problem is well known: adam (and eve) did eat of the fruit, but they did not die on that day.
-
-
notverylikely
If Adam and Eve were cut off from the tree of life... then they did not have and were prevented from having 'life' within themselves. As were all of us, until Christ came and gave us life.
Interesting idea. That would seem to imply that those that take advantage of Christ should regain life in themselves, basically and effectively gaining access to the same end as the tree of life would provide. However, I have never seen a Christian that didn't die, so that wouldn't make much sense.
Of course, if the reward is "no, you don't get immortal life until you die", that WOULDN'T be the same life, not an equivalent as the same thing Adam and by proxy his descendants gave up.
You only get life if you die? That's like saying you only get the medicine to heal yourself after you get the third degree burn.
-
39
On the day you eat...
by PSacramento insince it has been brought up a few time, i though it cool to post this interpretation of this part of genesis 2:.
http://biologos.org/blog/genesis-creation-and-ancient-interpreters-on-the-day-you-eat-of-it/.
one issue that occupied the attention of many early interpreters is found in genesis 2:16-17, where god warns not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat of it you shall die.. the problem is well known: adam (and eve) did eat of the fruit, but they did not die on that day.
-
-
notverylikely
By gaining life through and having faith in His Son.
The only problem with that idea is that the opportunity to do was denied billions of people. God clearly didn't think that plan through.
Its a metaphore for God being outside of time and time not really applying to God.
That's an interesting idea, but one that is not supported. Everything attached to God in the bible talks about time, long periods of time. He is tied to. He cannot exist without it in the Bible. It's a convenient way to overcome physical and theological problems, but there is no biblical support for it.
-
109
Feb. 15 Study WT - More creationism and stupidity - A response
by eric356 inwell, the wt is back on it: "today, there is a rising tide of atheistic and evolutionist propaganda dependent on flawed and baseless reasoning.
we should not let this flood of faulty thinking confuse or intimidate us.
" (pg.
-
-
notverylikely
I'm not being self-righteous
No, you aren't. You are apparently just stupid.
-
109
Feb. 15 Study WT - More creationism and stupidity - A response
by eric356 inwell, the wt is back on it: "today, there is a rising tide of atheistic and evolutionist propaganda dependent on flawed and baseless reasoning.
we should not let this flood of faulty thinking confuse or intimidate us.
" (pg.
-
-
notverylikely
Get your head from between your legs for a minute. This is about evolution not your gonads and your need to suppress women. Get with the program. lol
I know this isn't about supressing women. It's just that you asked a question, were provded examples, science and research answering the question and instead of taking a look at it, are displaying a small close minded self righteous attitude and stunning aversion to learning or educating yourself.
Other than that, you're fine, as far as I know.
-
109
Feb. 15 Study WT - More creationism and stupidity - A response
by eric356 inwell, the wt is back on it: "today, there is a rising tide of atheistic and evolutionist propaganda dependent on flawed and baseless reasoning.
we should not let this flood of faulty thinking confuse or intimidate us.
" (pg.
-
-
notverylikely
Evolution is not too hard for chicks
I know. Just some chicks. You, for instance.
Forgive us for wanting it all rather than just a tease.
You gotta earn it, not just lay there and expect to get it all. Learning is hard. You should try it sometime.
Give it up or shut up.
Sorry, until I get my sammich and you try to look sexy for me and get the hell out of the way of the TV when the game is on, you might as well be on mute.