Jesus Christ Orders The Use Of Marijuana For The Suffering.

[+RevThad]

No it is not educated guess. You condemn science but don't even understand how it works. In science the definition of theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." It does not imply uncertainty as you suggest. And what on earth makes you think that electricity is not well understood? I guess if you don't understand it no one does?

Funny that the discussion of electricity came up... While in the military we were taught that current (DC) flowed in one direction, while the civilian world teaches it flows in the opposite. Not the best anecdote but an interesting insight into how some folks come up with their perceptions of what is or isn't understood. Just as there are many that only understand cannabis from the propaganda they have been spoonfed for the last 4 decades +.

 

 

BTW, charged capacitors are still the greatest prank device ever created...

[+itssortalegal10]

No it is not educated guess. You condemn science but don't even understand how it works. In science the definition of theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." It does not imply uncertainty as you suggest. And what on earth makes you think that electricity is not well understood? I guess if you don't understand it no one does?

why are we still here rofl this guy is so silly its hard to leave right? cant prove how electricity works rofl...good lord its like watching clowns climb out of a tiny car innit? he probably still considers evolution and the big bang theory still despite the fact they are both now proven to be fact.

[+420Atheist]

Following that same logic, why didn't some other species evolve the same way? We go a step further than what was evolutionarily necessary, while Dawkins offers an interesting argument, and one that is at least worthy of looking at. The book was a good read.

 

My issue is more with fundamentalist religious fanatics, and their belief in the traditions of man. 2 examples that jump to mind are the bans concerning the eating of pork and drinking of fermented fruits. If one looks at the purpose behind those, it makes perfect sense. What happens when you slaughter a pig in a desert clime, with no refrigeration? What happens to the body when one drinks alcohol in the same climate? Dehydration, spoilage, food poisoning, death... all things that a growing central power cannot afford to have happen to their followers. There are many other rules that were used to control the populace and how quickly it turned itself over (via births and deaths).

 

BTW, I have the same sort of theory as you suggest involving women and "bad" boys...

 

Have a great evening, and thanks for your input.

 

You have read Dawkings? Nice. We really need to hang out some time. I can really respect someone who has considered both sides of an argument even if his conclusions don't match mine. To answer the question it would be one of two reasons. Either intelligence was not as beneficial as another trait or they just did not hit the mutation lottery like we did. Looking at the animal kingdom we all know some species are more intelligent than others. Dolphins come to mind as one considered highly intelligent for animals.

 

Great stuff about the traditions of man. I could not agree more that in the Bronze Age when the Bible was written the laws were there to protect people. I have always assumed the Council of Nicaea canonized the books they did because they would best allow them to stay in power. How different would Christianity be today if the Gospel of Thomas was in and not Romans?

 

You have a great evening too my friend.

[+420Atheist]

Funny that the discussion of electricity came up... While in the military we were taught that current (DC) flowed in one direction, while the civilian world teaches it flows in the opposite. Not the best anecdote but an interesting insight into how some folks come up with their perceptions of what is or isn't understood. Just as there are many that only understand cannabis from the propaganda they have been spoonfed for the last 4 decades +.

 

 

BTW, charged capacitors are still the greatest prank device ever created...

 

What I was taught in college was that for math purposes we figure electricity flows from positive to negative. But in reality we had to know it was the free electrons (neg charge) that moved from atom to atom. I also remember my professors words "a capacitor is two conductors separated by an insulator, whether you like it or not." I would have to go back and remind myself how that works it has been so long. I do remember the drop ceiling in the lab being full of stuck capacitors from people hooking them up backwards.

[+420Atheist]

why are we still here rofl this guy is so silly its hard to leave right? cant prove how electricity works rofl...good lord its like watching clowns climb out of a tiny car innit? he probably still considers evolution and the big bang theory still despite the fact they are both now proven to be fact.

 

Maybe he is a jugalo? How the F do magnets work?

 

[+RevThad]

why are we still here rofl this guy is so silly its hard to leave right? cant prove how electricity works rofl...good lord its like watching clowns climb out of a tiny car innit? he probably still considers evolution and the big bang theory still despite the fact they are both now proven to be fact.

As open minded as I am, I believe they are both considered theories still. On the other hand, the clowns into the tiny car thing still boggles my mind, the closest I can come to figuring it out is related to the Hawking's Paradox... Data going into a blackhole is not destroyed, yet anything going in is, except it is not, because it is just stretched into another plane. Dang clowns and their little tiny portable blackholes...

[borneagle]

why are we still here rofl this guy is so silly its hard to leave right? cant prove how electricity works rofl...good lord its like watching clowns climb out of a tiny car innit? he probably still considers evolution and the big bang theory still despite the fact they are both now proven to be fact.

 

LOL, it is all theory.

 

And you call me a clown?

 

Prove it aint theory... any one of you.

 

otherwise shut-up.

 

That's why they call it a "Big Bang THEORY".

 

ROFLMAO

 

The stupidity is unbelievable.

 

LOL... give me a freaking break.

[borneagle]

No it is not educated guess. You condemn science but don't even understand how it works. In science the definition of theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." It does not imply uncertainty as you suggest. And what on earth makes you think that electricity is not well understood? I guess if you don't understand it no one does?

 

It is all a guess Einstein.

 

When I was in colledge the THEORY (guess) says that electricty flows from positive to negative... except in the ignition system of the vehicle... that flows negative to positive, (kind of like a salmon swimming up river).

 

Ya right!

 

AT BEST, they have an educated guess.

 

Theory- 1 archaic : imaginative contemplation of reality : direct intellectual apprehension : INSIGHT *nor can I think I have the true theory of death when I contemplate a skull— Sir Thomas Browne*

2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

3 a (1) : the body of generalizations and principles developed in association with practice in a field of activity (as medicine, music) and forming its content as an intellectual discipline flicting theories of right.

 

You are showing your ignorance.

[borneagle]

If THEORY is so perfect (I can't believe that someone who doesn't even understand the basic concepts of theory is trying to teach me anything: ROFLMAO) what happened to these perfectly thought out and "understood" THEORIES?

 

 

1. Phlogiston theory.
   Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
   
   
2. Geocentric theory of the solar system.
   Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
   
   
3. The classical elemental theory
   (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
   
   
4. Aristotle's dynamic motion.
   It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
   
   
5. Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves.
   Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
   
   
6. Newton's corpuscular theory of light.
   While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
   
   
7. Newton's Laws of Motion
   (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, they were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
   
   

 

EVERYONE OF THEM DISPROVED!!!!

 

So much for the so-called superior understanding of the "smart-guys".

 

ROFLMAO... THIS IS LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL!!

 

LOL!!!

 

This is great!!!

[MI Compassion]

It is all a guess Einstein.

 

When I was in colledge the THEORY (guess) says that electricty flows from positive to negative... except in the ignition system of the vehicle... that flows negative to positive, (kind of like a salmon swimming up river).

 

Ya right!

 

AT BEST, they have an educated guess.

 

Theory- 1 archaic : imaginative contemplation of reality : direct intellectual apprehension : INSIGHT *nor can I think I have the true theory of death when I contemplate a skull— Sir Thomas Browne*

2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

3 a (1) : the body of generalizations and principles developed in association with practice in a field of activity (as medicine, music) and forming its content as an intellectual discipline flicting theories of right.

 

You are showing your ignorance.

 

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

 

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

 

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

 

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

 

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

 

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

 

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

 

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

 

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

 

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

 

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

 

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

 

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

 

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

 

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

 

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

 

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

 

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

 

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

 

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

 

Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?

Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.

Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.

Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."

Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.

In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.

Useful Prediction: If I leave broth open to the air, it will spoil. If I want to keep it from spoiling, I will keep it covered.

 

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.

 

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.

 

If THEORY is so perfect (I can't believe that someone who doesn't even understand the basic concepts of theory is trying to teach me anything: ROFLMAO) what happened to these perfectly thought out and "understood" THEORIES?

 

 

1. Phlogiston theory.
   Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
   
   
2. Geocentric theory of the solar system.
   Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
   
   
3. The classical elemental theory
   (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
   
   
4. Aristotle's dynamic motion.
   It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
   
   
5. Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves.
   Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
   
   
6. Newton's corpuscular theory of light.
   While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
   
   
7. Newton's Laws of Motion
   (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, they were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
   
   

 

EVERYONE OF THEM DISPROVED!!!!

 

So much for the so-called superior understanding of the "smart-guys".

 

ROFLMAO... THIS IS LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL!!

 

LOL!!!

 

This is great!!!

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_scientific_laws_or_theories_have_been_proven_wrong

 

Congratulations on being able to search Google and copy and paste the first result you find, however to use this as an excuse to pat yourself on the back and insult others in the process is pretty petty, especially since you couldn't take a moment to look up the definition of scientific theory before demonstrating your lack of understanding of science.

 

Again it's easy to point at things you don't understand and say "Hey, that's God!", but don't expect everyone else to agree. If you can't provide evidence of your claims expect people to be skeptical.

[borneagle]

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

 

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

 

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

 

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

 

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

 

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

 

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

 

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

 

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

 

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

 

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

 

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

 

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

 

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

 

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

 

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

 

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

 

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

 

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

 

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

 

Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?

Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.

Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.

Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."

Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.

In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.

Useful Prediction: If I leave broth open to the air, it will spoil. If I want to keep it from spoiling, I will keep it covered.

 

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.

 

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.

 

 

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_scientific_laws_or_theories_have_been_proven_wrong

 

Congratulations on being able to search Google and copy and paste the first result you find, however to use this as an excuse to pat yourself on the back and insult others in the process is pretty petty, especially since you couldn't take a moment to look up the definition of scientific theory before demonstrating your lack of understanding of science.

 

Again it's easy to point at things you don't understand and say "Hey, that's God!", but don't expect everyone else to agree. If you can't provide evidence of your claims expect people to be skeptical.

 

You wrote all that... and guess what.

 

THEORY IS A GUESS.

 

Unbelievable ROFLMAO... IT JUST KEEPS GETTING THICKER AND THICKER.

 

knock, knock, knock... IS THERE ANYONE HOME?.?.

 

And it didn't take but 3 seconds to pull up the results on google for such lame arguments, such as yours.

 

And there are a lot more too, you want me to Google them for you too?

 

Maybe if people did a little more research before opening their mouths, I wouldn't have to do it for them.

 

You telling me theory is more than an educated guess?

 

Please tell me you are smarter than that, please.

[MI Compassion]

So your position is that the bible, torah, pentateuch, are all wrong, therefore any beliefs based on those are wrong, and the only way to prove the faith in such beliefs is to prove the bible to be correct? Interesting.

 

I am simply saying that those that wish the bible as proof of anything need to address the evidence that I have shown that calls to question the accuracy of the events in the bible.

 

While science has accomplished a great many things, like the diseases eradications that you speak of. One could then also argue that science has created a great many of the new diseases and plagues. Many of the new diseases plaguing man, are either directly created and proliferated by man and science, or direct results of man's tampering with nature, causing evolution of the virus or disease to adapt and overcome man's "cures".

 

I think it's safe to say that the medical and scientific communities are in complete agreement that we have made huge leaps forward on curing and preventing disease than we where just a few centuries ago. Virii and bacteria have been evolving and changing for many thousands of years as has the human immune system to fight them off. While some strains may have evolved to be resistant to certain anti-biotics, we have wiped out the majority of the major diseases that not long ago plagued mankind.

 

The funny part about these types of discussions, is the ignoring of other measurable quantities. The list of achievements you provided, is very impressive. How is it that our species is capable of such feats, as we do not have the largest or smallest brains, we are not the strongest or weakest creatures, we are not even the hardiest? There is clearly something else that creates "intelligence". Goodall attempted to create a list of the smartest creatures, yet it is not complete and ignores other factors. Or more accurately, doesn't ask some very important underlying questions. Such as, why is it that man has developed quirky (for the lack of a better word) needs, desires, fetishes, and tastes? While it is clear that other creatures are able to feel empathy, sorrow, love, and numerous other emotional feelings, why is it that only man seems to exhibit those of inspiration, faith, belief, and superstition? There are many other defining questions that may never be answered, by science or faith. There is no question however, as to whether there is something special about man as compared to any other creature, what that extra something is, I suppose is at the root of the debate, no?

 

While it's true science does not answer all questions just because it doesn't answer a question now doesn't mean that there is no scientific answer to the question it only means more research needs to be done and an answer found. Every generation has filled many holes in science, and continues to do so every single day. We must always strive to answer the questions which we yet have an answer for. MANY "supernatural" events of biblical times which people pointed at as proof of God have been completely explained by science.

 

I guess that is it for this post... while you make some interesting points, there are some that are based on theory as opposed to hard evidence.

 

If you disagree with any evidence I have presented I encourage you to show me how my evidence is flawed. As I have shown scientific theory is the highest level of scientific understanding, to dismiss something because it's a theory and instead subscribe to something backed by absolutely no proof and then proclaim it to be the truth is very contrary to logic.

I wish you well.

 

Same to you.

 

There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages - Richard Lederer

[MI Compassion]

You wrote all that... and guess what.

 

THEORY IS A GUESS.

 

Unbelievable ROFLMAO... IT JUST KEEPS GETTING THICKER AND THICKER.

 

knock, knock, knock... IS THERE ANYONE HOME?.?.

Again with the cocky insults to someone who is simply trying to understand the bold statements you continue to make and which I can't seem to find any proof of no matter where I look. If you want to believe nothing is everything and everything is nothing more power to you, just do everyone a favor and don't bother debating the subject if all you can manage to do is insult and try to discredit other's opinions through insult and ridicule rather than show quantifiable evidence of your claims.

 

Worth repeating... ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Carl Sagan

 

Again, the burden of proof is on those that make ridiculous claims.

 

While I am completely open to everything you've said I would be a fool not to be a skeptic until I myself see proof of these things. I want to know more and challenge my own beliefs, which is why I ask questions and involve myself with intellectual debates on the subject.

 

I was really impressed that the conversation went as far as it did without religious people resulting to stupid character attacks and insults, and I am sad to see it degrading as quickly as it has. It saddens me that forum threads like these nearly always fall victim to some bitter and angry religious fanatic who has their beliefs challenged attacking and trying to discredit any and all perspectives that disagree with their unbacked opinions until they are shut down.

[borneagle]

Again with the cocky insults to someone who is simply trying to understand the bold statements you continue to make and which I can't seem to find any proof of no matter where I look. If you want to believe nothing is everything and everything is nothing more power to you, just do everyone a favor and don't bother debating the subject if all you can manage to do is insult and try to discredit other's opinions through insult and ridicule rather than show quantifiable evidence of your claims.

 

Worth repeating... ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Carl Sagan

 

Again, the burden of proof is on those that make ridiculous claims.

 

While I am completely open to everything you've said I would be a fool not to be a skeptic until I myself see proof of these things. I want to know more and challenge my own beliefs, which is why I ask questions and involve myself with intellectual debates on the subject.

 

I was really impressed that the conversation went as far as it did without religious people resulting to stupid character attacks and insults, and I am sad to see it degrading as quickly as it has. It saddens me that forum threads like these nearly always fall victim to some bitter and angry religious fanatic who has their beliefs challenged attacking and trying to discredit any and all perspectives that disagree with their unbacked opinions until they are shut down.

 

Stop the hogwash and stop representing THEORY as fact.

[MI Compassion]

Stop the hogwash and stop representing THEORY as fact.

 

I am not representing theory as being any more than what it is, a collection of facts which can be tested and proven to be wrong. If unable to be proven wrong these collection of facts are observed by the scientific community as a valid theory.

 

Science builds its theories in order to comply to observable facts. It is theoretical and open to revision as fact dictates. If new facts are presented that disprove a theory it's then no longer a theory. If you can not present facts to back up your claims then you're simply presenting a hypothesis... which is a guess not backed by understood fact, and until backed up by facts holds far less water than a theory.

 

By your definition all of human understanding is just a guess, which I can actually agree with on a lot of levels... but until someone presents something better than modern science it's the best we have.

 

Now if you would like to further the conversation on the subject please show us your proof so we might be able to test your hypothesis and form our own theories based on your proof.

 

Also since you have regular sit downs with Jesus maybe you can ask him what I am missing, so I might see the truth you claim he has shown you? My heart has always been open to any higher powers that be, and I spent 20 years as a faithful Christian believer and never once experienced the things that you claim you did... despite believing fully and unquestionably in the bible and Jesus without any evidence for a large portion of my life.

[+itssortalegal10]

If THEORY is so perfect (I can't believe that someone who doesn't even understand the basic concepts of theory is trying to teach me anything: ROFLMAO) what happened to these perfectly thought out and "understood" THEORIES?

 

 

1. Phlogiston theory.
   Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
   
   
2. Geocentric theory of the solar system.
   Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
   
   
3. The classical elemental theory
   (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
   
   
4. Aristotle's dynamic motion.
   It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
   
   
5. Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves.
   Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
   
   
6. Newton's corpuscular theory of light.
   While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
   
   
7. Newton's Laws of Motion
   (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, they were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
   
   

 

EVERYONE OF THEM DISPROVED!!!!

 

So much for the so-called superior understanding of the "smart-guys".

 

ROFLMAO... THIS IS LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL!!

 

LOL!!!

 

This is great!!!

Oops you forgot the theory of GOD since ya know it has not been proven...Also Big Bang AS I HAVE SAID A FEW TIMES has been proven now that they have found evidence of it in space..Heck I even posted a fancy text link to a page that explained what they found you just choose to ignore it because it would interfere with your core beliefs..I totally understand why you ignore science and choose magical thinking I do I get it..It makes you feel warm and fuzzy....Fish in a barrel may arse heres the link again man feel free to actually click through this time there Mr, Fish shooter..HERE ROFL unless you want to just consider that gas Gods FART to back up your theory of god...

[+itssortalegal10]

Stop the hogwash and stop representing THEORY as fact.

Dude for real what6 you believe is not only just a theory it is a man made concept that will NEVER be proven unlike many of these "theories" you claim we are resenting you with..Evolution still a theory? Who cares they have found proof that we are STILL EVOLVING!!!So lets do the math Proof of Big Bang, Proof of Evolution..Wheres your proof your defending so hardcore? is it the man made book you hold so dear?

[+420Atheist]

You wrote all that... and guess what.

 

THEORY IS A GUESS.

 

 

Dude. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend what you read? Are you obtuse to be argumentative? Or are you just obtuse?

 

Here is a link to music theory dot net. Does that help you comprehend that theory does not mean it is not well understood? Probably not because you are dishonest in your discussion ignoring anything that does not agree with your narrative.

 

Scientific theory is not a f'ing guess.

 

Scientific theory is a well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.

 

You can continue this argumentum ad nauseam fallacy but the more times you say "theory is a guess" does not make it true.

 

Your other intellectually dishonest tactic is to hold science up to a higher standard than you hold your own unproven and untested beliefs.

 

It is sad that you claim the moral high ground but can't concede to any point that does not agree with you even when it is evidentially true.

[+420Atheist]

If THEORY is so perfect (I can't believe that someone who doesn't even understand the basic concepts of theory is trying to teach me anything: ROFLMAO) what happened to these perfectly thought out and "understood" THEORIES?

 

 

1. Phlogiston theory.
   Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
   
   
2. Geocentric theory of the solar system.
   Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
   
   
3. The classical elemental theory
   (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
   
   
4. Aristotle's dynamic motion.
   It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
   
   
5. Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves.
   Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
   
   
6. Newton's corpuscular theory of light.
   While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
   
   
7. Newton's Laws of Motion
   (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, they were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
   
   

 

EVERYONE OF THEM DISPROVED!!!!

 

So much for the so-called superior understanding of the "smart-guys".

 

ROFLMAO... THIS IS LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL!!

 

LOL!!!

 

This is great!!!

 

HaHaHaHa Ya all good scientific info comes from answers.com that anyone can contribute to. Let me get this right. You are using theories that are hundreds of years old that SCIENCE long ago disproved for new better theories as a bases discredit science? You do understand how inane that circular logic is? Right? Oh wait a minute. You believe the bible is right because god says so in the bible. I'm pretty sure you would not be able to understand if I told you begging the question is attempting to support a proposition with an argument that presupposes the proposition. Or at least you would pretend you didn't understand.

 

You could not shoot fish in a barrel with dynamite. What is really inane about this list is the Geocentric theory was forced on science by the church. Galileo promptly changed his mind about the earth revolving around the sun after the Pope invited him to tour the churches dungeons and placed him under house arrest. It is your ilk that held back science 100s of years due to your Bronze Age superstitions.

[MI Compassion]

All men are ignorant... and I stand by my statement... men KNOW nothing (unless they experience it for themselves)... you just read a "source" and treat it as if you have facts.... you have nothing but second hand evidence, believing what someone told or wrote to you.

 

You talk about "facts". You have no facts... just hearsay.

 

You have no idea what I believe to even have a comment or an argument.

 

I don't go to church, I wasn't even married in a church because I don't believe in being controlled by what someone else tells me to believe.

 

I have met God, period. What is a preacher going to tell me?

 

You want to call me stupid, ignorant, insane, dumb... more power to you.

 

I have talked to God face to face... what are you going to tell me that he doesn't exist. ROFLMAO

 

Argue with someone who doesn't know any better.

 

I have stared the grim reaper (a real being) in the face, and wrestled with him 18 days in a coma... are you going to tell me the being I faced in my stairwell was a figment? Again, go waste your breath with someone else.

 

God has grown a bypass around an occluded artery around my heart, over night... are you going to tell me healings are false? Again... go tell it to someone who doesn't KNOW any better, because you are wasting your time with me.

 

Are you going to tell me how Satan is a made-up creature... I have met and argued with him... so again, don't waste my time.

 

Yes, if you are going to try and educate me as to how fake God is... you are more than wasting your time.

 

You don't want to believe in God... fine, but I know better.

 

My objective is cannabis consumers uniting for a cause... we are going to meet all kinds of people in this very important movement that have our same perspective concerning freeing cannabis. I would rather focus on that.

 

Not what someone who has never even met God has to say about Him. Kind of like writing about fishing, when you have never done it yourself.

 

Frankly I could care less if you jump rope for worship, and I have no desire to convert you (or anyone else)... take all your smarts and do great things!

 

More power to you.

 

There is far more reasonable explanations for your hallucinations. It just so happens someone uploaded the new unreleased DMT The Spirit Molecule documentary that explains the psychoactive compounds created by your own body and present in everyone's brain to youtube today, check it out! I am sure these experiences seemed very real to you, just as the DMT experiences of Dr. Rick Strassman MD's patients where to them.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubuTR5vXISA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DdcCSLHCk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPIP_kO4pkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YozLKycOENA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXd-si8ku_I

 

And you claim you're not trying to convert anyone, yet you've made dozens of replies to numerous threads on the subject attacking and ridiculing any other opinions that differ from yours without providing a shred of proof for anything you've said? Please try to see the irony in this...

 

I believe if given the chance cannabis will change the world for the better.

 

On this we should be able to agree.

 

This I do agree on, and I even have showed many Christians evidence that Cannabis may have been used in the healing oil of Exodus, and if it was I feel this is logical explanation as to why someone who went around healing people with oil made from 6+ pounds of the finest cannabis extracts would have been known by his local tribe of Jewish slaves and a healer and admired him for this and considered him a wise teacher. I do this so they might be less judgmental of those that use cannabis.

[Ionic7]

One thing i still don't get is borneagle or what ever said he has argued with satan, so he is the first person since the bibles old testament to argue with him? Or interact with him thoroughly?

[Ionic7]

 

And you claim you're not trying to convert anyone, yet you've made dozens of replies to numerous threads on the subject attacking and ridiculing any other opinions that differ from yours without providing a shred of proof for anything you've said? Please try to see the irony in this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

A vast majority of the hardcore religous "people" claim they are not trying to convert anyone but they sit there and attempt to insult and mock, keyword is attempt as eagle has proven all he does is spew out random babble, why not just let people be happy the way they are with out forcing your views down their throat you believe in god, good for you, you found something to spend your free time on, I believe in a flying spaghetti monster yay for me. My point is lay off the insults eagle and let people believe what they want.

[FootFungus]

One thing i still don't get is borneagle or what ever said he has argued with satan, so he is the first person since the bibles old testament to argue with him? Or interact with him thoroughly?

 

The Bible also doesn't say humans don't interact with the devil. It does say he can transform himself to appear as an angel of light, so he appears to someone at least based on that verse. That is just quite an assumption... lack of stories of arguing does not equal nothing taking place.

[+greenhouse]

Good is stronger than evil

 

positive action beats negative everytime

 

No one can prove there is a God or even jesus

 

My experience is that they are real

 

But that's just my experience...I still dont know 100% if they even exist....we dont get to know

 

 

That is the faith part which can be scary in many ways...the drink the kool-aid way and the dont want to trust what I dont know... way

 

Doomsday prophecy has been around forever...perhaps just part of awaking that this is temporary state

 

No one here gets out alive....to quote Jim Morrison

 

Anyway...whatever

 

I'm sure it will come to you eventually

 

peace!

 

~hg

I think maybe God is Evil. And now why I think so....

Evil is a human definition, a label for what we despise. We could call is anti-Good, whatever. But it is what it is, and it's only "Evil" because we say it is.

 

See God "created" more like "is" both Good and Evil, as we know them. Without one, there would not be the other. No force goes unopposed. Each particle has it's own anti. So is there a Good particle and an Evil particle? Nope, they just do what they do, an Up quark has an up spin, whether it helps cause or cure cancer.

 

See we judge cancer (rightly so) as evil because we do not understand it's purpose, and it takes our loved ones. Well, so do a lot of things. We all die, and we all love, but pain causes us to judge. It is our internal dialog and personal circumstances that cause us to see things in Good and Evil. They exist sure, in our heads, but is there a crazy jealous band of Angels trying to lead us astray from something or someone? I don't believe so.

 

Love causes pain. If karma were real, I would have punched the lights out of the last dude that stiffed me of my money, but instead I have chose to forgive him.

 

I think that forgiveness and love are the greatest gifts we can give. If one believes in the Bible, or at least some of it, one may garner how important and valuable forgiveness is. If we forgive someone for their transgressions, imagine how embarrassed God would be to then punish them. If an imperfect human, the target of the transgression were able to forgive, then God's punishment would be unnecessary.

 

To be free I have to reserve judgment, and forgive everyone. That's what works for me, that and love.

 

While it sounds nice to imagine and say Good wins over Evil every time, I respectfully disagree. Maybe it does, maybe the universe is out of balance, but it doesn't seem to be a good plan, long term. Sweet needs bitter to be sweet. Good REQUIRES Evil to exist. If we had not judged one thing bad, we could not have a reference for good and vice versa.

 

However, our judgment does not make it so. It is merely a biased opinion. Where do evil intentions come from? Satan? Or humans judging intent? Most evil acts are done out of revenge or to benefit the evildoer. Perhaps in their mind it's not evil? Will God be there to set things straight after this fight's all over? Why so late? Why not now when cancer is ravaging my wife's body? Suffering can draw folks closer to God or push them away, because as humans we cannot help to judge God also.... lol

[MI Compassion]

borneagle, I have been looking forward to hearing back from you as I could not be more interested in what God has to say about me and my situation... I hope you return soon and share his insights with us.