Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[schmuck]

---

bisan pa ug ma Mega Scientific THEORY na. pero without concrete conclusions of evidence is equivalent to assumption ra gihapon na.



Yes God is in hell watching over you.

Choy, ang theory dili mapurma kung walai evidence. Murag bali jd imong understanding.
Also, that's good to know god is watching me take a shit now. God has the biggest/weirdest voyeur fetish haha

[kenites]

I found this one on the net, basin maka tabang pud ni in understanding kung unsa jud ang Scientific Theory:

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 more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. 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. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
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.
An 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.

[remz399]

That means god is in hell too! So no matter where you end up, heaven, hell doesn't matter because god is there.

God isn't a Hell bro. u don't know hu and where rely God exist..

Kung mao na imo opinion. we respect it. hope God will touches your heart para mo 2.o na jud mo niya. PS!.. .

hehehe..^_^™

[redhorse1L]

That's called cherry-picking. Have you heard of that? Abi kai wrong ang Bible from a scientific perspective, ignore daun to nga parts and say nga in terms of "FAITH" and "MORALS" ra ang true sa bible.

Let's see, from what you're saying dili true account ang Genesis story sa Bible. Remember Original Sin? Yeah, the one where Jesus supposedly died on the cross for. Remember which part of the Bible the original sin came to be? In Genesis right? Oh wait, Genesis is not a true account. So what was all that dying on the cross about again?

The Bible is, and will always be infallable in terms of "FAITH" and "MORALS".
Have you heard from theology class saying that the bible is a scientific book?

We say the bible: "FAITH" and "MORALS", But YOU say bible: "FAITH", "MORALS", "SCIENCE". ? ? ?
Why do you keep pressing on the bible to voice out about science?

We are talking here about our existence here.

I'll throw a question to you.


Law of action and reaction, Law of conservation of matter and energy (as Science says)

- Where is the small dense energy came from?
- Who made the Bang?

[schmuck]

The Bible is, and will always be infallable in terms of "FAITH" and "MORALS".
Have you heard from theology class saying that the bible is a scientific book?

We say the bible: "FAITH" and "MORALS", But YOU say bible: "FAITH", "MORALS", "SCIENCE". ? ? ?
Why do you keep pressing on the bible to voice out about science?

We are talking here about our existence here.

I'll throw a question to you.


Law of action and reaction, Law of conservation of matter and energy (as Science says)

- Where is the small dense energy came from?
- Who made the Bang?

Way to miss the point dude. What I'm saying is, if you are banking your fate for a whole eternity based on a book, that book better be correct IN ALL it contains because the stakes are THAT high. Turns out, its "correct" on these things, its not correct on those things diay. Your fate for eternity is at stake here! If the bible is not 100% infallible, then ITS JUST AN ORDINARY BOOK like any other.

Still don't understand cherry picking eh? I'm guessing you didn't even bother to look it up. You see, if imo jd ipugos ang scientific explanation to be "compatible" with Christian beliefs, you are effectively maiming the whatever "morals" and "faith" because the backbone of it(the concept of original sin) is gone. Science and the Christian faith are IRRECONCILABLE. And that's my point.

Who made the big bang? (edit: I think asking "who" is assuming someone is needed). We don't know yet. Here's an interesting bone for you.
YouTube - The Search For Hidden Dimensions - Brian Greene, RDF TV

[necrotic freak]

Choy, ang theory dili mapurma kung walai evidence. Murag bali jd imong understanding.
Also, that's good to know god is watching me take a shit now. God has the biggest/weirdest voyeur fetish haha

mao lagi. theory is composed of evidence, data, experiments, etc... but what im referring to is the final evidence or proof of that theory which is the most awaited missing link. Mao na choy.

Well you can do your shit where ever you want. but god can take a pee on you from the sky. haha

[schmuck]

God isn't a Hell bro. u don't know hu and where rely God exist..

Kung mao na imo opinion. we respect it. hope God will touches your heart para mo 2.o na jud mo niya. PS!.. .

hehehe..^_^™

Its either god is omnipresent(is everywhere) or not. If wala cya sa hell, then he is not omnipresent. So which is it? Hope you can clarify.

[schmuck]

mao lagi. theory is composed of evidence, data, experiments, etc... but what im referring to is the final evidence or proof of that theory which is the most awaited missing link. Mao na choy.

Well you can do your shit where ever you want. but god can take a pee on you from the sky. haha

again choy, wala ka kasabot. Read and UNDERSTAND then re-read and understand more the extensive copy-pasta by kenites on the previous page. A theory DOES not need a FINAL evidence. Whatever it is you are talking about.

[redhorse1L]

Way to miss the point dude. What I'm saying is, if you are banking your fate for a whole eternity based on a book, that book better be correct IN ALL it contains because the stakes are THAT high. Turns out, its "correct" on these things, its not correct on those things diay. Your fate for eternity is at stake here! If the bible is not 100% infallible, then ITS JUST AN ORDINARY BOOK like any other.

Still don't understand cherry picking eh? I'm guessing you didn't even bother to look it up. You see, if imo jd ipugos ang scientific explanation to be "compatible" with Christian beliefs, you are effectively maiming the whatever "morals" and "faith" because the backbone of it(the concept of original sin) is gone. Science and the Christian faith are IRRECONCILABLE. And that's my point.

Who made the big bang? We don't know yet. Here's an interesting bone for you.
YouTube - The Search For Hidden Dimensions - Brian Greene, RDF TV

I don't think you understood how the bible came to be.
The bible did not came down from heaven with God's seal on it.
It is written by people, with different cultures, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It is 100% infallible in "FAITH" and "MORALS".
Give me a teaching (FAITH or MORALS) in the bible that you think is false.


Oh, ok, so you don't know yet who made the big bang?
I would suggest you just have to research more (which will take eternity) with your Jimmy Nuetron stuffs before posting some comments here.
Since you haven't given a proof too (a scientific rule).


This topic is not even appropriate.
It should have been: did the Universe came from God?

[TOPNOYZE]

i beleive in science...pero ni grow up ko sa bible...

ang bible ra akong gi sundan para mahimo kung maayo nga tao.
pero sa science gyud ko ni tu-o sa evolution.