The Great Jesus Swindle, Greatest lie ever told.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Perhaps you missed something, or perhaps your reading ability is held back as well.

Perhaps you're full of crap and using ad hominem attacks because you can't think of any effective way to argue.

So it's okay, you just need to get up to speed. You have a lot to learn before you start arguing concepts that you don't even currently understand.

How can you rightfully say such a thing when you can't even understand the points I've made? All you've done is misrepresent my statements and you continue to avoid my question. You also keep avoiding the fact that you didn't answer my question with factual information. Instead, you make up excuses and respond with a hypothetical statement, then you continue to make up excuses for that one after I point it out. You also keep avoiding the fact that you're being dishonest and you failed to admit it after I exposed your dishonest ad hominem attacks in those three quotes, then you continued to make even more ad hominem attacks in your last post. That makes you a liar and very untrustworthy. Quite a big display of ignorance from such an "educated" person, as you claim to be.

As far as I can tell from particle collision experiments, protons and neutrons might even be made of smaller particles that have their own electromagnetic fields, so your little theory about the particles basically becoming immaterial if their fields are breached or removed is simply just a theory.

Did you miss that part? That's what I wrote. You act as if I never mentioned that at all. Perhaps your reading ability is held back. Don't be such a hypocrite.

reply to post by Condemned0625


If you go back you'll see I tried to answer your question, but your education level just isn't up to par to understand the concepts that would lead to an answer that you would understand yet. The answer to your question is also in the link I sent, and the last post I wrote showing that sub-atomic particles don't touch either.

Before we started talking you were even unaware of basic elementary school science. Now I've made you aware that the information is out there. It's up to you to seek out the knowledge. Don't let yourself fall victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's not beneficial for anyone. Just keep learning.

Maybe in five or ten years when you get up to par we can continue the discussion.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

As far as I can tell from particle collision experiments, protons and neutrons might even be made of smaller particles that have their own electromagnetic fields, so your little theory about the particles basically becoming immaterial if their fields are breached or removed is simply just a theory

Like I said in one my earlier posts. You have a severe misunderstanding of what a hypothesis versus a theory is. This would not be a theory. That would be a hypothesis. Which was the answer to your hypothetical question.

You wanted to know what would happen to an atom if the forces holding it together were removed. Well we don't have the technology to know, but using plain and simple logic we assume the atom would come apart. But I don't expect you to understand why yet. But it's because the forces holding it together would be gone, but you have a long way to go to understand what forces I'm talking about and what is in play.

reply to post by Extralien


How ignorant.

reply to post by tinfoilman

You have a severe misunderstanding of what a hypothesis versus a theory is.

Actually, I don't. You see, there's this thing called the 'Dictionary' that I've been using the whole time. It's a great resource. You should try it sometime. Must I give you the definition again?

Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Well we don't have the technology to know, but using plain and simple logic we assume the atom would come apart.

Well, well, well. Looks like we have ourselves a theory here. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural. A theory is also defined as a guess. A hypothesis is basically the same thing. You're mistaken because you're the one who doesn't understand the similarity between hypotheses and theories.

Hypothesis - a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Do you see the similarity there? They're actually mostly identical terms because - surprise! - 'theory' is a synonym for 'hypothesis'! Now your nonsense is starting to make me laugh. This is so ridiculous but funny at the same time.

But it's because the forces holding it together would be gone, but you have a long way to go to understand what forces I'm talking about and what is in play.

Oh, are you talking about the fundamental interactions? The four known forces of nature: Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Gravitation? Don't play stupid with me.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Actually solids may be seen as condensed energy waves, as thats what Quarks are made of. In any case, no matter what theories are theories, because the stuff in school books is based on theories too, there is no spoon. Which in no way interferes with Yeshua's message being Love.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Well if you understand all these forces then obviously you see now that you were wrong at the start. You've never actually touched your couch or any atoms in it. Just the electromagnetic field produced by the atoms in it. The couch is 99 percent empty. Like I said in the beginning, but you argued with me and said I was wrong, but it's just basic elementary science. Congratulations! You've learned something new!

Feels good doesn't it? See, I told you, you'd get up to speed!

EDIT:
You still need to learn what a scientific theory is though.
en.wikipedia.org...

"A distinction is sometimes made in science between theories and hypotheses, which are theories that are not considered to have been satisfactorily tested or proven."

A scientific theory is something that has already been tested and proven or have vast amounts of evidence to back them up already. Different from the word theory you would find in your dictionary as the context of our conversation is scientific in nature. You'll learn more about that when you get to high school.

reply to post by tinfoilman

The couch is 99 percent empty. Like I said in the beginning, but you argued with me and said I was wrong...

I never said it wasn't 99% empty. I asked you about the 1% and that was it. You're being dishonest...again. I didn't "learn" anything new. I already knew all of this. How many times are you going to lie? Your credibility plummets with every lie you tell.

A scientific theory is something that has already been tested and proven or have vast amounts of evidence to back them up already. Different from the word theory you would find in your dictionary as the context of our conversation is scientific in nature. You'll learn more about that when you get to high school.

Another lie! I don't know how many #ing times I need to tell you how insanely wrong you are. First of all, a theory is not a proven statement. When something is proven, it is no longer a scientific theory, but a scientific fact. Get your sh!t straight. I already went through high school years ago and I've learned more from other sources than all of my years in school combined.

I should also remind you that you keep ignoring me when I expose your dishonesty. You keep changing the subject and avoiding it when I quote your lies directly, word for word. I'm not going to stop mentioning it until you stop ignoring it and admit that you're a liar who uses ad hominem attacks and jumps directly to assumptions that are not based on evidence.

You'll learn more about that when you get to high school.

Lie. Ad hominem.

A scientific theory is something that has already been tested and proven or have vast amounts of evidence to back them up already.

Another lie (by definition).

The couch is 99 percent empty. Like I said in the beginning, but you argued with me and said I was wrong...

Another lie.

You have a severe misunderstanding of what a hypothesis versus a theory is.

And another lie.

Before we started talking you were even unaware of basic elementary school science. Now I've made you aware that the information is out there.

And another.

If you go back you'll see I tried to answer your question, but your education level just isn't up to par to understand the concepts that would lead to an answer that you would understand yet.

And another...

There's plenty more where those came from. Are you sure you're an intelligent person? I haven't seen any good display of intelligence from you, nor any honesty for that matter. Just one baseless lie after another and you still continue to do it even after I expose it all. Indeed, someone here does have a problem and it should be fixed before it gets worse.

Don't fall victim to the pathological liar syndrome. You know you're lying when you claim something as ridiculous as "You'll learn more about that when you get to high school.", yet you do it anyway, which calls your sanity into question. Now it seems like you've made a habit of it, so maybe you're both a pathological liar and a compulsive liar. Pathological liar syndrome and compulsive liar syndrome are not that hard to notice. So, what's your excuse this time? Eh, why should I even bother? You'll probably ignore it again like usual and continue to lie over and over until you convince yourself that it's all true.

I recommend that you read this, then read your own words and ask yourself why this was brought to your attention. If you still don't get it, you're on your own. Good luck.

www.buzzle.com...

reply to post by Condemned0625


We already went over this. The 1% is solid, but not the kind that you were claiming. You cannot TOUCH it. When talking about atoms, solid refers to density, not something you can touch. When I pointed this out pages ago you tried to change the definition of solid to something that doesn't need to be touched. However, your original assertion about touching your couch was wrong which was what started the debate in the first place.

Now we already went over this. It said right in the footnote of that link I gave.
www.worsleyschool.net...

"However, our current state of understanding leads physicists to believe that electrons and protons themselves are made from combinations of even smaller elementary particles called quarks, which are held apart by their own forces. So even on the sub-nuclear scale, there is NO TOUCHING." That's your 1%. You just learned something new.

Also you did argue with me about the couch being 99% empty. You posted this definition to rebut my post.
"3. having the interior completely filled up, free from cavities, or not hollow: a solid piece of chocolate." That's the definition for solid that YOU posted.

However, your couch is not completely filled up or free from cavities. It is 99 percent empty space. I don't appreciate being called a liar.

Come on now, you just said in your last post that you understood this? Are you sure you understand it? Perhaps you should read it again?

You're also wrong about what a scientific theory is. Perhaps you couldn't understand my adult source I gave you to Wikipedia.

So, to explain what a scientific theory is, perhaps it'll help you understand if we use something geared more towards children. I found another site called biology4kids.com that can help explain.
www.biology4kids.com...

"Hypothesis
- a statement that uses a few observations
- an idea based on observations without experimental evidence"

See a scientific hypothesis has no to little evidence.

"Theory
uses many observations and has loads of experimental evidence"

See a scientific theory has loads of experimental evidence and most times it's just about proven by the time a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific theory. A scientific fact and a scientific theory mean the same thing.

So, we see there is a huge difference between a scientific theory, and the word theory in the dictionary. A scientific theory has evidence to back it up. A hypothesis does not.

What's probably tripping you up is you don't understand the difference between the word theory and the meaning of the term scientific theory which is a theory formed using the scientific method and not just random guessing.

EDIT:
And also, I don't like being a called a liar. Don't lash out at me. You're welcome to look this stuff up on your own. I know when people's flaws and lack of education is pointed out they can lash out, but there's no need for that.

I just assumed since you hadn't learned about this stuff yet, that you hadn't made it to high school for that. Apparently you were just never taught correctly while you were in high school. I apologize for that.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Don't like being called a liar? Then don't lie. Don't make up a bunch of bullsh!t about me or else I'll notice it and expose you as a liar. Is that too difficult for you to understand? Maybe you should go back to high school and do it all over again or maybe take a psychology class.

Also you did argue with me about the couch being 99% empty. You posted this definition to rebut my post.
"3. having the interior completely filled up, free from cavities, or not hollow: a solid piece of chocolate." That's the definition for solid that YOU posted.

That's definition number THREE. What about the others I gave you? You lie, you make up bullsh!t about me and you omit important parts of quotes instead of including the entire quotes. You really are a piece of work. I suggest you find a therapist because it seems that you're suffering from some sort of lying syndrome, whether you realize it or not. Denial is one of the main symptoms and I've seen plenty of that in your replies. Time to grow up.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Hmm, well it just seems you're only interested in lashing out now instead of even doing a simple Google search and learning what people are talking about in today's world.

Hopefully one day you can get over your anger and denial when evidence doesn't support your world view. You know, the evidence doesn't always tell us what we like to hear? But it is what it is. I hope you can learn to see past all that one day.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[8] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.[9]

You know, the evidence doesn't always tell us what we like to hear? But it is what it is.

There certainly isn't any evidence to support your view. I gave you evidence against it. It is what it is.

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory does NOT assert itself as a scientific fact. This discussion is over due to your excessive misunderstanding of simple terminology, not to mention your excessive lying and logically fallacious ad hominems. I proved my point numerous times and I will attack you in return with an ad hominem of my own: You're an idiot.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[8] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.[9]

You know, the evidence doesn't always tell us what we like to hear? But it is what it is.

There certainly isn't any evidence to support your view. I gave you evidence against it. It is what it is.

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory does NOT assert itself as a scientific fact. This discussion is over due to your excessive misunderstanding of simple terminology, not to mention your excessive lying and logically fallacious ad hominems. I proved my point numerous times and I will attack you in return with an ad hominem of my own: You're an idiot.

edit on 4/5/2011 by Condemned0625 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/5/2011 by Condemned0625 because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry, I don't see how this proves a hypothesis and a theory are the same thing? Perhaps you should be more honest in your post and write out what exactly you are trying to prove?

Are you saying that because a scientific theory is different than a scientific law that a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis are the same thing? You must be confused? A hypothesis, theory, and law are three different things.

The original argument you made was that a hypothesis and a scientific theory are the same thing. They are not. I'm not sure how proving that a scientific theory and a scientific law are different things AS WELL, proves that a scientific hypothesis is a scientific theory?

Could you please explain how showing that a theory is different from a law, proves that a scientific theory is the same as a scientific hypothesis?

Also, what you quoted doesn't even have the word fact in it. Nor say anything about the word fact? Perhaps your should explain how what you posted shows that a scientific theory and fact aren't the same thing? Perhaps you misunderstand?

A theory and a fact are essentially the same thing, because scientists don't like to use the word fact. They use the word theory because a theory is something that gets refined when more information is known. For virtually all purposes though they're the same thing. They just don't like the word fact. As you can see, cause it's not in what you posted.

This further just proves what I was saying.
Quote, "Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence."

reply to post by tinfoilman


chemistry.about.com...

There's a link for you. I could not find any information about 'scientific hypothesis' anywhere. It's not even in the dictionary, which doesn't surprise me. What a joke.

Anyways, you're still wrong. Let's review this quote and figure out what's wrong with it.

A theory and a fact are essentially the same thing, because scientists don't like to use the word fact.

I beg to differ. Let's look at the definitions of both words and compare them.

Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

Do you see the obvious difference there? I'm not pointing this out again. This is the last time I will "hold your hand", so to speak. Here's even more links if you still can't comprehend this.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.johnpratt.com...

You're also wrong about hypotheses and theories. They're not totally different. A theory is essentially a hypothesis that can be tested and has not been proven nor disproved. Since your hypothesis can be tested in the future or even now, it is also a potential theory. It is a conceptual assertion that currently has no evidence to support it but it can and probably will be tested very soon. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on you. We're done.

Originally posted by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient

Originally posted by jrstock

Who are you? Really, you see EVIL acted through man every waking moment. That you some how need proof the one True God.

I am sorry, I do not fully understand what you are saying here. Your "evidence" of god is that people are doing bad things?

You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong.
Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought.
It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone me, to prove His existence.
The existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying it. No one needs proof that God exists.


Evidence is corruptible. So why would you need evidence for proof of God. If you don't have the mind or the heart
or any life experience that tells you God is real. Then I am absolutly sorry for you.

At best any arguement for or against there being a God is a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong..
This being the absolute fact of the situation, I'm glad I'm a believer.


I'm sorry for barging in like this carry on.

reply to post by Condemned0625


I'm sorry you just don't understand how all this works. I said it before, but I'll repeat. When talking about science you're talking about a scientific hypothesis vs a scientific theory.

You must be confused because even your OWN links that you are posting are proving you are wrong. You posted this link. chemistry.about.com...

And I quote, "Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing."

This is what I was trying to tell you. They're three different things.

This is from your OWN link.
"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation."

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing."

It's not that hard to find a link.
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm trying to explain that scientists don't usually use the word fact as we do. When most people say scientific fact, the word they should really be using is theory, or law. In science it's either a hypothesis, theory, or law.

reply to post by randyvs


i'll stop reading and barge in to say
i absolutely agree with you.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Here you go again, claiming that facts and theories are the same things. I gave you the EXACT definitions for those words and they are clearly different. It doesn't #ing matter if the word 'scientific' is in front of them. They are still different and that's a fact, not a theory.

This is your last chance.

Fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
Scientific Fact - any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted.

Scientific Theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable".

Straight from the dictionary again. I have no idea how many times I've shown this to you. Your inability to understand it just baffles me. At this point, I have no good reason to even read your response because I'm expecting you to say the same bullsh!t again like you have I don't know how many times so far. There's the information, the differences are there and it's unambiguous. It's not my fault that you can't comprehend it. Before you waste anymore of my time, I'm ending this nonsense right now. You can come back to me when you're actually ready to argue honestly and effectively with accurate information at your disposal. Until then, you're definitely not ready - not even at your age. Bye.

The Bible clearly states that Christianity is only for those people whom the Father draws to Him. People who preach the gospel are trying to find those who are being drawn to Jesus by the Father. It's not going to happen for everyone in this life.

I do believe it can happen in the next life for the others, however.

reply to post by Condemned0625


What you just said has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. The argument you claim is that a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory are the same thing. But you just keep rambling about facts which has nothing to do with your argument.

To get you back on track, I'll have to remind you that the debate is scientific theory vs scientific hypothesis.

An educated scientist wouldn't use the word fact. He would usually call it an observation

A theory is made up of many small facts or observations. This is what we typically call evidence. The theory is backed up by observations, evidence, research, and what you call facts. Therefore making the theory as good as fact in most cases.

You're just not educated enough to understand that you're out of context. There are not four categories that go hypothesis, theory, law, fact. There's just three categories that are hypothesis, theory, and law.

What you mean by facts is what we call evidence. It is not its own category. The evidence combined fits inside the theory category. They are not their own category.

You wouldn't say there are hypotheses which are the same as theories and then facts. You would say there are hypotheses and then theories that are backed up by facts. That's how an educated person would say it.

I think you've forgotten what you're trying to prove. That a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis are the same. Nothing you just wrote had anything to do with that. You just keep rambling about facts. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a scientific hypothesis versus a scientific theory.