Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Convincing Arguments ... are STILL just a Theory

30 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I would add that a convincing argument is still just an argument and compelling evidence is still just evidence...neither of which are proof.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

A theory is a good thing to be in science. It means it has been peer-reviewed and the evidence scrutinized and it has predictive value. Gravity is only a theory, but you would't want to jump off a building to test it. If you have a theory you are particularly unhappy with, the science community would be ecstatic to see you disprove it (as theories cannot be proven).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

 

 

========================================================

 

Carbon dating itself is a THEORY

 

Well actually Radiometric Dating isn't even a Theory (More like Guessing ;) ) it's in the trash-bin because it's been Falsified by the many False Positives and errors with Known Ages.

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

 

Be careful here, I know what you meant, but.....

 

(2 Thessalonians 2:11) "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

A theory is a good thing to be in science. It means it has been peer-reviewed and the evidence scrutinized and it has predictive value. Gravity is only a theory, but you would't want to jump off a building to test it. If you have a theory you are particularly unhappy with, the science community would be ecstatic to see you disprove it (as theories cannot be proven).

 

 

 

=====================================================================

 

It means it has been peer-reviewed and the evidence scrutinized and it has predictive value.

 

Baloney!  It's a Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion......again.

 

Peer review is the opposite of science.....it just ossifies the current paradigms or assumptions and censors competing hypothesis that the "good ole boy" network doesn't like.  This is anti-science, IMHO......

 

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Dr Michael Crichton Speech California Institute of Technology 17 Jan 2003

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122603134258207975

 

 

Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  No legitimate enterprise polices itself.  Would you like me to provide a LONG LIST of examples demonstrating a rather intuitive fact?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Baloney!  It's a Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion......again.

 

Blah, Blah, Blah Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion because Enoch does not understand a concept.  Peer review has nothing to do with consensus...it is just the opposite.  It is a chance for those in your field to tell you that your theory is wrong.   One more concept for which you don't have a clue. Some people see through you Enoch - you are preaching to the choir here - why don't you float your massive knowledge on a board where science prevails and see what the response is?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

Baloney!  It's a Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion......again.

 

Blah, Blah, Blah Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion because Enoch does not understand a concept.  Peer review has nothing to do with consensus...it is just the opposite.  It is a chance for those in your field to tell you that your theory is wrong.   One more concept for which you don't have a clue. Some people see through you Enoch - you are preaching to the choir here - why don't you float your massive knowledge on a board where science prevails and see what the response is?

 

 

:huh:

 

Just let you post unsolicited lol.  I must say though this one is in Classic Territory  :thumbsup:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

=========================================================================

 

Another surreptitious little escapade they undertake with "Theory" is a pathetic attempt to equivocate....."Look, Gravity is just a Theory, go jump off a bridge and see what happens lol, do you question that?"

 

Then....you know it's commin, "evolution is a Theory"  :24:

 

They need to because it's foundation is built on silly puddy.

 

Funny, you never here anyone defending Einsteinian or Newtonian Physics say "hey, these are as well established as evolution!!" lol. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

..."just a theory" haha. next thing you know you will start saying "If man came from dirt, why is there still dirt?" or some silly creationist meme like that...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

..."just a theory" haha. next thing you know you will start saying "If man came from dirt, why is there still dirt?" or some silly creationist meme like that...

 

Actually, we "creationists" just intuitively..... stay away from Non-Sequitur's and focus our attention on painfully obvious items such as:

 

Kinesin1_zpse680aede.jpg

 

The Amazing Kinesin, Yes it's Walking......on, predetermined then constructed roads.  It's packages are Date and Time stamped with A Specific Address/Location.  It's akin to a Blind Hyper Nano-Tech Fed Ex Delivery Machine.

 

Then we say to ourselves......well, DUH !! :duh:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

A theory is a good thing to be in science. It means it has been peer-reviewed and the evidence scrutinized and it has predictive value. Gravity is only a theory, but you would't want to jump off a building to test it. If you have a theory you are particularly unhappy with, the science community would be ecstatic to see you disprove it (as theories cannot be proven).

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory. I thought in science it was recognised as a law because it has been proven and equations can be calculated to measure it.

Evolution however, now that IS just a theory!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

A theory is a good thing to be in science. It means it has been peer-reviewed and the evidence scrutinized and it has predictive value. Gravity is only a theory, but you wouldn't want to jump off a building to test it. If you have a theory you are particularly unhappy with, the science community would be ecstatic to see you disprove it (as theories cannot be proven).

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory. I thought in science it was recognized as a law because it has been proven and equations can be calculated to measure it.

 

Evolution however, now that IS just a theory!

 

:thumbsup:

 

It's

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

 

The Law

 

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

 

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

 

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

 

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:23-28

 

See?

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory.

 

Common mistake.  Proofs are only valid in math.  There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In the OP there was a reference to other religions. I wouldn't say that theories is the correct term here. Better to leave it at religion or to some degree worldview.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory.

 

Common mistake.  Proofs are only valid in math.  There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory.

 

 

No, it's not a mistake. Gravity is not a theory. A quantum theory for gravity is, but not gravity itself. If you're going to go down that line then everything in science is a theory because once you get down to reasons behind reasons, well..... where does it finish?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In the OP there was a reference to other religions.

 

I wouldn't say that theories are the correct term here.

 

Better to leave it at religion

 

or to some degree

 

worldview.

 

:thumbsup:

 

Some Religions Are Found Cloaked Deep Within The Study Of Dirt

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

 

Where The Conviction Is Stuff Has (Given Time)

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

The Innate Property To Go From Simple

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25

 

To Complex And From Complex

 

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:26-27

 

To Life Itself

 

Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works. Psalms 104:30-31

 

So

 

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

 

There Is No Sin

 

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

Nor Is Redemption Possible

 

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:18-19

 

Nor Is There Hope For Peace On Earth

 

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. John 14:27

 

Because It Naturally Is Not Found In The Cosmic Mind Of Mother Nature

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory.

 

Common mistake.  Proofs are only valid in math.  There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory.

 

 

No, it's not a mistake. Gravity is not a theory. A quantum theory for gravity is, but not gravity itself. If you're going to go down that line then everything in science is a theory because once you get down to reasons behind reasons, well..... where does it finish?

 

Gravity is described by gravitational theory.  If you think otherwise, you do not have a fundamental understanding of science.  Theory is science's highest order...theories cannot be proven only disproven.  As far as this sub forum, you should stick to the faith side and avoid science if you cannot understand such a basic concept.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory.

 

Common mistake.  Proofs are only valid in math.  There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory.

 

 

No, it's not a mistake. Gravity is not a theory. A quantum theory for gravity is, but not gravity itself. If you're going to go down that line then everything in science is a theory because once you get down to reasons behind reasons, well..... where does it finish?

 

Gravity is described by gravitational theory.  If you think otherwise, you do not have a fundamental understanding of science.  Theory is science's highest order...theories cannot be proven only disproven.  As far as this sub forum, you should stick to the faith side and avoid science if you cannot understand such a basic concept.

 

 

hmmm....

 

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

 

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

 

....

 

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

 

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

 

so, either the happy scientist is wrong or Jerry is wrong. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory.

 

Common mistake.  Proofs are only valid in math.  There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory.

 

 

No, it's not a mistake. Gravity is not a theory. A quantum theory for gravity is, but not gravity itself. If you're going to go down that line then everything in science is a theory because once you get down to reasons behind reasons, well..... where does it finish?

 

Gravity is described by gravitational theory.  If you think otherwise, you do not have a fundamental understanding of science.  Theory is science's highest order...theories cannot be proven only disproven.  As far as this sub forum, you should stick to the faith side and avoid science if you cannot understand such a basic concept.

 

 

hmmm....

 

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

 

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

 

....

 

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

 

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

 

so, either the happy scientist is wrong or Jerry is wrong. 

 

The computers we are posting on are possible because of just a little theory called electromagnetic theory.  All science is based on just theories.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory.

 

Common mistake.  Proofs are only valid in math.  There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory.

 

 

No, it's not a mistake. Gravity is not a theory. A quantum theory for gravity is, but not gravity itself. If you're going to go down that line then everything in science is a theory because once you get down to reasons behind reasons, well..... where does it finish?

 

Gravity is described by gravitational theory.  If you think otherwise, you do not have a fundamental understanding of science.  Theory is science's highest order...theories cannot be proven only disproven.  As far as this sub forum, you should stick to the faith side and avoid science if you cannot understand such a basic concept.

 

 

hmmm....

 

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

 

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

 

....

 

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

 

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

 

so, either the happy scientist is wrong or Jerry is wrong. 

 

The computers we are posting on are possible because of just a little theory called electromagnetic theory.  All science is based on just theories.

 

 

Scientific Law  A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

 

Scientific Hypothesis  A scientific hypothesis is a tentative explanation of an observation or pattern which has been observed in nature.

 

Scientific Theory  A scientific theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon with a broad range of significance and application.

 

 

The chief distinction between a scientific law, on the one hand, and a theory or hypothesis on another, is that a law is a generalization.  It is NOT an explanation.  It is the result of induction.   It is an empirical (ie based on observation alone) statement of something which always appears to be true.

Hypotheses and theories, on the other hand, are an attempt to explain what has been observed.  Often scientists form theories to explain laws.

 

Laws:

1. The Law of Gravity.   This law tells us the size of the gravitational force, but it does not explain why gravity exists or even why it is as strong as it is.

2. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.   The first law of thermodynamics tells us that every experiment ever done leads to the conclusion that energy is always conserved.  It is an empirical fact, but it is not an explanation.  The second law of thermodynamics is extremely successful at predicting what processes are spontaneous, but it cannot explain why entropy increase causes spontaneity.

Theories:

1.  The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power.   We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory.  It is the breadth of the theory more than the amount of support which makes it a theory.  In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain.

 

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CG8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grossmont.edu%2Fjohnoakes%2Fs110online%2FNotes%2520on%2520Scientific%2520Laws.doc&ei=0LYwU5uvJoq5qAGhxIGoDw&usg=AFQjCNHe1KkFCySYux1fhLz4BvZkRNxzpA

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory.

 

Common mistake.  Proofs are only valid in math.  There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory.

 

 

No, it's not a mistake. Gravity is not a theory. A quantum theory for gravity is, but not gravity itself. If you're going to go down that line then everything in science is a theory because once you get down to reasons behind reasons, well..... where does it finish?

 

Gravity is described by gravitational theory.  If you think otherwise, you do not have a fundamental understanding of science.  Theory is science's highest order...theories cannot be proven only disproven.  As far as this sub forum, you should stick to the faith side and avoid science if you cannot understand such a basic concept.

 

 

hmmm....

 

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

 

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

 

....

 

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

 

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

 

so, either the happy scientist is wrong or Jerry is wrong. 

 

The computers we are posting on are possible because of just a little theory called electromagnetic theory.  All science is based on just theories.

 

 

Scientific Law  A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

 

Scientific Hypothesis  A scientific hypothesis is a tentative explanation of an observation or pattern which has been observed in nature.

 

Scientific Theory  A scientific theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon with a broad range of significance and application.

 

 

The chief distinction between a scientific law, on the one hand, and a theory or hypothesis on another, is that a law is a generalization.  It is NOT an explanation.  It is the result of induction.   It is an empirical (ie based on observation alone) statement of something which always appears to be true.

Hypotheses and theories, on the other hand, are an attempt to explain what has been observed.  Often scientists form theories to explain laws.

 

Laws:

1. The Law of Gravity.   This law tells us the size of the gravitational force, but it does not explain why gravity exists or even why it is as strong as it is.

2. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.   The first law of thermodynamics tells us that every experiment ever done leads to the conclusion that energy is always conserved.  It is an empirical fact, but it is not an explanation.  The second law of thermodynamics is extremely successful at predicting what processes are spontaneous, but it cannot explain why entropy increase causes spontaneity.

Theories:

1.  The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power.   We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory.  It is the breadth of the theory more than the amount of support which makes it a theory.  In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain.

 

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CG8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grossmont.edu%2Fjohnoakes%2Fs110online%2FNotes%2520on%2520Scientific%2520Laws.doc&ei=0LYwU5uvJoq5qAGhxIGoDw&usg=AFQjCNHe1KkFCySYux1fhLz4BvZkRNxzpA

 

Laws are a subset of theory.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Laws are a subset of theory.

 

 

No, they are not.  They have very different purposes. 

 

http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

 

While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

 

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, for example, describe the motions of planets but do not provide an explanation for their movements.

Both scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field of scientific study; and both are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline.

 

While a scientific theory can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method. A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accumulated. That is not the case.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Laws are a subset of theory.

 

 

No, they are not.  They have very different purposes. 

 

http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

 

While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

 

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, for example, describe the motions of planets but do not provide an explanation for their movements.

Both scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field of scientific study; and both are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline.

 

While a

 

 

 

Laws are a subset of theory.

 

 

No, they are not.  They have very different purposes. 

 

http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

 

While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

 

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, for example, describe the motions of planets but do not provide an explanation for their movements.

Both scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field of scientific study; and both are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline.

 

While a scientific theory can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method. A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accumulated. That is not the case.

 

 

 can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method. A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accumulated. That is not the case.

 

Newton's laws are a subset of gravitational theory.  Laws describe the way gravity affect objects, but do not describe why.  Thus, a subset...from your link:  A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

 

 

========================================================

 

Carbon dating itself is a THEORY

 

Well actually Radiometric Dating isn't even a Theory (More like Guessing ;) ) it's in the trash-bin because it's been Falsified by the many False Positives and errors with Known Ages.

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

 

Be careful here, I know what you meant, but.....

 

(2 Thessalonians 2:11) "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

 

 

I appreciate that.  But, I wasn't confusing the passage - I know that one well.  I was referring to 2 Th 2:9.  The root cause is the lying wonders and deceit of the Antichrist which causes God to be like, "Ok, ya'll want delusions and you prefer to believe lies?  Fine.  I'll keep you in darkness!" as seen a few verses later. 

 

But the ROOT CAUSE of this, isn't God simply sending delusion.  It's a RESULT of the hard hearts of men who prefer the lie over the truth anyway.  In fact, I see it in the world today.

 

I appreciate the admonishment, but I think we'd agree on this.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In the OP there was a reference to other religions. I wouldn't say that theories is the correct term here. Better to leave it at religion or to some degree worldview.

 

Hi Gray,

 

I've been debating for about 15 years (7 years removed in that).  I've debated wide ranges, and studied much, and learn a great deal along the way.  My words are deliberate ... based on my experiences.

 

Also, I wasn't aware that this would be a "hot topic" for some.  It was, however, directed to CHRISTIANS - true, born-again believers.  I wasn't vying for the attention of any other group.  So, it's not meant to be well-balanced, but clearly lop-sided with favoritism towards one group.  Sorry about that, but it's the truth.

 

I'm aware NOW that there are minors in here and non-Christians, and psuedoChristains, and the curios and the contenders.  I know that NOW.  lol  But again, this thread was created with the Brethren in mind.

 

"Love one another.  By this, the world will know that you are My disciples" - Jesus

 

 

So, do I show favoritism to the Christian brethren?  Yessir - I do.  I make no apologies for that.  But it doesn't not mean i am dishonest or deceitful in my delivery either.  

 

I hope ya'll can exchange your ideas and opinions without any verbal bloodshed.  I didn't realize this would be a contested thread when I created it.  I apparently, get into trouble in these threads for things I don't realize ... every time.  lol   But TRUTH is spoken nonetheless

 

 

MessengerOfTruth

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0