By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Jesus Christ of Nazareth loves you!

justinian said:
setsunatenshi said:
justinian said:
Faxanadu said:
No, you do not understand what a scientific theory really means. Go google it.


OK, I will. 

Ok I did.

In the vernacular, "theory" can refer to guesswork, a simple conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts and need not be framed for making testable predictions. Scientific theories also contain speculation at first as scientists necessarily reach past the threshold of current knowledge, but they develop heuristically or through axillary claims as observations from experiments are explained and cause-effect relations are understood. Theories are constructs having both explanatory and predictive capacities that are built on inferential sets of logic (consilience of inductions,abductions, and deductions), models, and syllogistic schemes or laws that can be falsified through well designed experiments. In this way, theories that survive and develop through critical testing, such as Charles Darwin's theories on evolution, become richly informative as they explain cause-effect relations among many observable phenomena.

Thanks, I get it.

There is scientific fact, scientific theory and then there is absolute truth. Evolution has reached scientific fact but not absolute truth.

You just made up the term absolute truth to try and downplay what the theory of evolution by natural selection is.

I'll draw you a fast map, use it well:

 

Evolution = observable fact

Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection = Scientific theory that best explains the observed fact of evolution.

 

Comparison------ When you jump, something seems to pull you back to earth.

Observed fact: objects are seen to attract themselves to other bodies. Somehow, the bigger the mass of said body, the stronger this attracting force becomes.

Scientific Theory : Theory of Gravity seems to be the one who most accurately describes the fact mentioned before.

 

I honestly hope it helped you at least to not spread false information. But somehow i remain skeptic on my success

Just because I take the line of other scientists that don't believe evolution to be exact I am spreading false information.

I am not saying evolution is true or false. I myself believe it to be true, but I would not say it is true any more than God exist.

Evolution is split between scientists who either take it as fact, theory or otherwise.

The media highlights those that find "proof" for it and ignore the ones that argue against this "proof".

The origins of modern man have many different theories and changes everyday. In some ways so do evolution.

My argument is that there is no absolute certainty. Not that it is nonsense.

I am partial to the statement below.

Evolutionary biologist Kirk J. Fitzhurgh wrote, "'Evolution' cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations...One might argue that it is conceivable to speak of 'evolution' as a fact by way of it being the subject of reference in explanatory hypotheses...In the strictest sense then, 'evolution' cannot be regarded as a fact even in the context of hypotheses since the causal points of reference continue to be organisms, and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts...While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions...An emphasis on associating 'evolution' with 'fact' presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty."

You believe what you want, I choose to believe what I want. 


could you provide me a reliable link for that quote? i promise i'll look into the veracity of it. In the meantime please read carefuly what I wrote previously.

I get the feeling you're confusing 2 separate things 'Evolution' and 'The theory of evolution by natural selection'. There were several theories for evolution that were shown as wrong due to our increased knowledge regarding DNA for example.

one final thing before i look into your quote, you don't get to chose what you believe i think. You are compelled to believe what the evidence presents to be the reality. In this case you are unable to dismiss evolution as a fact because we can see it happening everyday (how do you think you have so many variations of dogs for example?) and in order to deny evolution you must present some different theory that explains the visible facts of evolution. Unless you present a better theory to explain them you are forced to accept the best explanation for the time being



Around the Network

GOD'S NOT REAL !!!

GOD'S NOT REEEEEEEEEEAL !!!!!!



pezus said:
Player1x3 said:

GOD'S NOT REAL !!!

GOD'S NOT REEEEEEEEEEAL !!!!!!

My dear Player1x3, this topic is not about god. I don't care if you don't believe in him, just make another thread for it if you wish to express your belief that loudly.


Christ is a son of God and a part of a holy trinity :D



setsunatenshi said:
justinian said:

Just because I take the line of other scientists that don't believe evolution to be exact I am spreading false information.

I am not saying evolution is true or false. I myself believe it to be true, but I would not say it is true any more than God exist.

Evolution is split between scientists who either take it as fact, theory or otherwise.

The media highlights those that find "proof" for it and ignore the ones that argue against this "proof".

The origins of modern man have many different theories and changes everyday. In some ways so do evolution.

My argument is that there is no absolute certainty. Not that it is nonsense.

I am partial to the statement below.

Evolutionary biologist Kirk J. Fitzhurgh wrote, "'Evolution' cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations...One might argue that it is conceivable to speak of 'evolution' as a fact by way of it being the subject of reference in explanatory hypotheses...In the strictest sense then, 'evolution' cannot be regarded as a fact even in the context of hypotheses since the causal points of reference continue to be organisms, and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts...While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions...An emphasis on associating 'evolution' with 'fact' presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty."

You believe what you want, I choose to believe what I want. 


could you provide me a reliable link for that quote? i promise i'll look into the veracity of it. In the meantime please read carefuly what I wrote previously.

I get the feeling you're confusing 2 separate things 'Evolution' and 'The theory of evolution by natural selection'. There were several theories for evolution that were shown as wrong due to our increased knowledge regarding DNA for example.

one final thing before i look into your quote, you don't get to chose what you believe i think. You are compelled to believe what the evidence presents to be the reality. In this case you are unable to dismiss evolution as a fact because we can see it happening everyday (how do you think you have so many variations of dogs for example?) and in order to deny evolution you must present some different theory that explains the visible facts of evolution. Unless you present a better theory to explain them you are forced to accept the best explanation for the time being

1) Unfortunately I cannot. It was from Zoological Scripta: Fact, Theory, Test and Evolution. I am sure you can find it somewhere online . I didn't make it up. Kirk. J Fitxhurgh is curator of the LA Natural History museum and researches evolution theories, etc.

2) I disagree, I think you get to choose what you believe. If a person chooses to believe in the reality of God, aliens or ghost it is entirely up to them whether they have "found evidence" of such things or not. 

3) Do we see signs of evolution everyday?

National Academy of Sciences: “The creation of a new species from a pre-existing species generally requires thousands of years, so over a lifetime a single human usually can witness only a tiny part of the speciation process. Yet even that glimpse of evolution at work powerfully confirms our ideas about the history and mechanisms of evolution. For example, many closely related species have been identified that split from a common ancestor very recently in evolutionary terms. 

Justinian note:  I assume that the above is what you are refering (apologises if I misunderstood).

 Critics, however, point out that the issue is not whether mutation and natural selection can produce minor changes; it’s whether these mechanisms can create new tissues, organs, limbs or body plans.

Biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, of Oxford University, points out that “no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small … changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial” (emphasis in original).

Again, do not gt me wrong. I am NOT RUBBISHING EVOLUTION. I am simply with those scientists that need more evidence.

@pezus. I don't recall saying that the scientists were 50/50 in their interpretation of evolution. The history of science itself shows the majority is not always right, as during the 70s about the lack of geological activity on planets or moons in our solar system.



Jesus was nice for what he stood for considering a decent amount of his teachings were against the money making practices of the church, helping the poor, sick, etc. He also stated that you didn't have to go to church to worship. I am not christian anymore but I believe worshiping anyone you want to is a lot more respectful in nature than going to some building with gold lining and stained glass windows.



Around the Network
pezus said:
Player1x3 said:

GOD'S NOT REAL !!!

GOD'S NOT REEEEEEEEEEAL !!!!!!

My dear Player1x3, this topic is not about god. I don't care if you don't believe in him, just make another thread for it if you wish to express your belief that loudly.

You probs didn't watch the R/atheism not-funny vid. It's nice to tell people what to do when he was actually addressing a post made by another user.

@that video. Notice how many times the words hate, stupid and I don't care came up. Reflexions are real.



Guys, I finally found Jesus! I have him in my basement and am keeping him hostage for a hefty bounty. Anyone want a piece? If nobody pays, I'll just start cutting off fingers. Don't worry, he's jesus, he'll grow them back.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 said:
Guys, I finally found Jesus! I have him in my basement and am keeping him hostage for a hefty bounty. Anyone want a piece? If nobody pays, I'll just start cutting off fingers. Don't worry, he's jesus, he'll grow them back.

Not interested. He's a fraud like all the others who came after him.



I knew somebody had to love me! Thank you Jesus!



Nintendo and PC gamer

ninetailschris said:

Let's lock the thread.

I'm Christian but know trolls will be disrespectful and say stuff which based on ignorance/stupidity.

Mod do us a favor and save us from a flame war.

By the way OP I respect you for what your doing. It's sad trolls have to ruin everything in life.

When you are on a forum with regulars who have seen about everything, one can't come on here with a very simple religious bumper sticker, or part of a Bible tract and not expect to end up getting fragged for it.  The Christian faith deserves more respect and a more mature treatment than what was seen in the original post.