By definition, a theory is......
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;
opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgement, contention."
Changing the definition of the word "theory" to pretend that it doesn't mean that, does not give science a license to fabricate evidence to suit their supposition.
Atheist scientists are so keen to get rid of all notion of a Creator that they will find a fossil and make up a story about its origins and its ancestors....then present it in a timeline without an ounce of solid evidence that it ever happened that way.
Its supposition masquerading as fact.
That is the kind of science that I object to. OK?
Now this just makes me smile...I said....
"Disproving some science is incredibly easy...most people have no idea how much of what science projects is actually hot air."
The laws that govern nature did not write themselves IMO. I respect those laws as coming from the Creator....but I do not respect science suggesting that these laws dropped out of nowhere to govern the entire material universe. So I have no beef with factual science at all....just the theoretical sort that presents conjecture and states it as fact......when they actually invented the facts with nothing but the flimsiest excuse to suggest that its true.
One of my favorites is whale evolution....
"The evolution of whales
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."
The evolution of whales
Can you read what is written there for students and tell me where the actual
evidence is for whales ever being four-legged land dwellers, apart from the supposition and suggestion by science in trying to support their theory?...and look! there is an ear bone that
"strongly resemble those of living whales."
Sorry but this is a load of hogwash.
Perhaps I should highlight one important point here.....I have a
belief system and you guys claim not to. I have studied your 'scientific evidence' and found that it is based on nothing but assumption, assertions and suggestions.....there is no real evidence that macro-evolution is even possible.
If you can't prove that your theory is correct, then you have what I have....."
belief".
Annoying, isn't it?
I can't prove the existence of my Creator any more than science can prove that an amoeba morphed itself into a dinosaur. You want facts....there's a fact.
I don't think "absolute" proof is what I was talking about. You and I both know that science is not about proving anything. With evolution, it is about suggesting what "might have" transpired millions of years ago when no one was here to document a thing. (Except the Creator and so few want to take any notice of him)
Its about filling in the gaps with....what? Fossils? Fossils can't talk but science likes to give them a voice....does science know what they fossils are saying or do they invent the rhetoric to fit the theory? What do they base their assumptions on? Very flimsy evidence as far as I can tell. Like whale evolution for example....based on the similarity of an ear bone? Seriously?
We both have "beliefs".....but you choose to believe what science tells you. As a "physical" man I can understand that. I prefer to rely on the Bible because I feel a deep connection to its author, and what it says resonates with me.
You have human wisdom to rely on, whilst I rely on the Creator to tell me what he did and when. He also provides me with "why" he has done things the way he has. I find it very satisfying on so many levels....past, present and future.
Again, the difference between a "spiritual" person and a "physical" one is the ability to see things through spiritual eyes. If you've never had that kind of vision (perception) then it is pointless trying to explain it. It would be like trying to explain color to one born blind. Its no wonder we don't understand each others position on things.
We are aliens to one another.
Spirituality has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence, even though this has been suggested to me a number of times by atheists.
Its not the lack of "evidence" that is the problem....its the interpretation of that evidence that makes the difference. The way science interprets its evidence, to us makes something plausible out of something impossible. And what you think is impossible is totally plausible to Bible believers. No one is going to win this argument. Its really just about choosing your position and hoping for the best I guess.
If we have no time for God, then it is obvious that he has no time for us. That is how I see it.