Why 'just a theory'?

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

I take it you don't have a Defender's Study Bible?

 

[QvQ]

Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity is still part theory, part fact.
The Theory is a "world view" of physics in reality, a hypothesis of "how it all works."
Over the last century most of what Einstein theorized have been proven.

Over the last 2 centuries, very little of Darwin's Theory has been proven.
Most evidence of "evolution" is circumstantial.

One fact that is becoming apparent is that mankind has genetically manipulated many species over a very long period of time through selective breeding, chemical and recently surgical methods.
When the species that is manipulated is left on it's own for even a few generations, that species either reverts to the original genetic prototype or the particular manipulated branch of the species dies out

Mankind has been unable to "evolve" any species according to Darwin's definition and mankind has tried.

Einstein has been proven to be true, therefore only a small portion of the original theory of relativity is still "theory."
Darwin is still mainly speculation, therefore, a nice idea but no proof.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

What do you think this passage means?

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

My bible doesn't say that. It says living. But to that my answer is, "what is the word of God?" I started saying, about 5 years ago, that I don't believe our bibles are "the" word of God. Rather, I believe they "contain" the word of God. And to use the "a little leaven..." argument, There is 1 Cor 7:12 "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)..."

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity is still part theory, part fact.
The Theory is a "world view" of physics in reality, a hypothesis of "how it all works."
Over the last century most of what Einstein theorized have been proven.

Over the last almost 2 centuries, very little of Darwin's Theory has been proven.
Most evidence of "evolution" is circumstantial.

One fact that is becoming apparent is that mankind has genetically manipulated many species over a very long period of time through selective breeding, chemical and recently surgical methods.
When the species that is manipulated is left on it's own for even a few generations, that species either reverts to the original genetic prototype or the particular manipulated branch of the species dies out

Mankind has been unable to "evolve" any species according to Darwin's definition and mankind has tried.

Einstein has been proven to be true, therefore only a small portion of the original theory of relativity is still "theory."
Darwin is still mainly speculation, therefore, a nice idea but no proof.

And even a "simple" thing like gravity is still but a theory. And there is a lot of talk nowadays about it being an artifact of time.

 

[trophy33]

I take it you don't have a Defender's Study Bible?

No.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So no-one really can say why the theory of evolution is 'just a theory' and yet other scientific theories aren't 'just theories' too. Wonderful.

/thread

 

[AV1611VET]

My bible doesn't say that. It says living. But to that my answer is, "what is the word of God?" I started saying, about 5 years ago, that I don't believe our bibles are "the" word of God. Rather, I believe they "contain" the word of God. And to use the "a little leaven..." argument, There is 1 Cor 7:12 "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)..."

Wow.

And let me guess:

You embrace evolution, don't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

Just fyi, check this post out:

POST 22

 

[AV1611VET]

/thread

Nuts!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nuts!

To be fair, I've asked for a thread cleanup before a closure because I'd like to try and get something out of this thread that isn't just... well, you guys prattling off on each other about Biblical inerrancy versus translation against the guy who says it was originally written in Jacobean English.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, I've asked for a thread cleanup before a closure because I'd like to try and get something out of this thread that isn't just... well, you guys prattling off on each other about Biblical inerrancy versus translation against the guy who says it was originally written in Jacobean English.

Well, for the record, I may disagree with you on a lot of stuff, but your commentary is always welcome.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Wow.

And let me guess:

You embrace evolution, don't you?

Nope. Quite the opposite. I consider it nonsense. Well, macro-evolution. I've used this argument for decades: claiming evolution is how mankind came about is like seeing a '57 chevy rusting away in a field and saying it was created by rust. "Evolution" is what happens to living things AFTER they are created. And the ones that do evolve are actually "de-evolving" (mutating). And the ones that de-evolve die off.

My position on what is "the word of God" comes from a lot of complexities in what others define as "the" word of God. If you are in the Etheopian orthodox church, you consider 1 Enoch to be canon. And I've always been confused by why, though the writers of the NT as it is contained in our English language bibles often directly quotes the Septuagint, why do our modern bibles use the Masoretic text and not include all the books in the Septuigent. Which is why I finally bought an Apocrypha.

And in 2 Timothy Paul says that all scripture is good for all sorts of things, but what does he mean by "scripture" and "all". I mean, they had their Septuagint, and 1 Enoch is quoted in the NT. And don't forget, the NT had not even been compiled yet, so he wasn't talking about that. And he didn't say all scripture is "the word of God". I think people read a lot of stuff in it that isn't there. And don't get me wrong. I agree strongly with 2 Timothy, AS IT IS WRITTEN. It is inspired by God, and for me that includes the NT. But God gave me a brain to discern from the stuff, on my own.

At the end of the day, one needn't have a bible to be saved by the blood and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, son of God and son of man. nor does one need to believe it is "literally" the words of God. Rather, it is the words of God and man. It is both divine and human. That's why I has more than one Gospel.

Prayer is infinitely more important than a bible. But both are good!

 

[trophy33]

Just fyi, check this post out:

POST 22

Just a longer list of eisegesis, anachronism and of the lack of understanding the context of the Bible.

 

[QvQ]

So no-one really can say why the theory of evolution is 'just a theory' and yet other scientific theories aren't 'just theories' too. Wonderful.

Einstein's "Theory" of Special and General Relativity has been demonstrated to be true.

Darwin's "Theory" has Not been proven to be true. The evidence is circumstantial.

Again, mankind has manipulated species through selective breeding, chemical and surgical methods.
All the manipulations, when left to their own devices, either revert to the original or die out.

Mankind has been unable to create a stable evolved species.
Mankind has manipulated, thus "evolved" the genetics of species for at least 8,000 years
Not one of man's evolved species has become a natural species.
Naturally, the manipulated species reverts or dies
There isn't any proof of evolution other than "must be so."

"Should Be So" is not proof of fact. Circumstantial evidence is subject to any interpretation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity is still part theory, part fact.
The Theory is a "world view" of physics in reality, a hypothesis of "how it all works."
Over the last century most of what Einstein theorized have been proven.

No the Theory of General Relativity is 100% a theory. "Part fact" is a nonsense label to put on a theory. Scientific theories are explanatory frameworks for a group of phenomena. GR is the frame work that explains the phenomena known as "gravity" and several other related things.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Einstein's "Theory" of Special and General Relativity has been demonstrated to be true.

Darwin's "Theory" has not been proven to be true. The evidence is circumstantial.

Again, mankind has manipulated species through selective breeding, chemical and surgical methods.
All the manipulations, when left to their own devices, either revert to the original or die out.

Mankind has been unable to create a stable evolved species.
Mankind has manipulated "evolved" the genetics of species for at least 8,000 years
Not one of man's evolved species has become a natural species.
Naturally, the manipulated species reverts or dies
There isn't any proof of evolution other than "must be so."

Mankind doesn't need to be the one to produce anything since nature and the fossil record have shown it to have happened already.

Mankind creating a new species would not be natural, thus man-made and thus would invalidate any premise of fairness you think your idea has anyway.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Just a longer list of eisegesis, anachronism and of the lack of understanding the context of the Bible.

I don't think the bible discusses anything from a scientific perspective. Is job was not to impart 24th* century scientific knowledge to ancient man.

*I didn't say 21'st be cause I have no doubt that should the Lord continue to wait another 300 years and we continue to progress scientifically, there will be a LOT more things in the bible people will argue contradict "modern" science.

I'm surprised nobody has said, "since the bible says someone was "knitted" together in the womb, where did the knitting needles go?" I also believe it is possible that back a few thousands of years bible actually used the word "seed" to describe sperm because they thought the womb was playing the role of the dirt you plant a seed in, as opposed to giving half the DNA (computer code) to create a human being or two. And God left it that way. It made the point that needed to be made.

 

[QvQ]

No the Theory of General Relativity is 100% a theory. "Part fact" is a nonsense label to put on a theory. Scientific theories are explanatory frameworks for a group of phenomena. GR is the frame work that explains the phenomena known as "gravity" and several other related things.

However the General Theory has proved to be true in that it accurately reflects a reality and is useful.
The Theory of Evolution has not proved to be true and is useful only as a paper construct to imagine the possible relationship between two objects.
Evolution has not been proven. The evidence is circumstantial and open to many "best guess" interpretations.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Mankind doesn't need to be the one to produce anything since nature and the fossil record have shown it to have happened already.

Mankind creating a new species would not be natural, thus man-made and thus would invalidate any premise of fairness you think your idea has anyway.

I found a backbone to a deer on my property a couple of years ago. I still have it "on display" right next to my computer. I see it as part of a biological machine and an amazingly efficient one at that. Every part of it has a function and removing any part causes it to fail miserably. It is truly fascinating. It is also VERY machine-like. Just like my hand, with its bones, tendons and muscles, and all the systems needed to supply blood, instructions for movement, and when to pull it out of a fire, etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I found a backbone to a deer on my property a couple of years ago. I still have it "on display" right next to my computer. I see it as part of a biological machine and an amazingly efficient one at that. Every part of it has a function and removing any part causes it to fail miserably. It is truly fascinating. It is also VERY machine-like. Just like my hand, with its bones, tendons and muscles, and all the systems needed to supply blood, instructions for movement, and when to pull it out of a fire, etc.

Really has nothing to do with what I said.