Chiefblackhammer

Earth isn't round, in fact it happens to be very "flat" in places as theorized by modern day scientists to the point to say that the poles are indeed .33% flatter than at the equator...so no they didn't prove the earth was round...in fact they haven't "proved" any aspect of it...have they measured the earth...really? Made a big cast of it and seen if the earth was truly round? No they haven't. But yes I believe it is round however I claim no "proof" of it.

46 chromosomes? You mean 46 "known" chromosomes... have they studied the chromosomes of all humans? No, are most of the things they know about chromosomes estimates? Yes (like gene basis and length). In fact there is huge debate over if we have 46, 47 or 48 of them..the 46 is just the generally accepted number...for now.

Other galaxies? Really has anyone been to one of them? How do we know that they are really there? Pictures of them using a big telescope? Maybe NASA photoshoped it all Don't get me wrong I DO believe in them but that doesn't mean it is "proven" is all I am saying.

Why? Because in order to "prove" something you have to test in in every possible way and scenario, under all circumstances and science can't and never will be able to do that. For 1 thing, 1 simple theory there are infinite tests and no amount of time could exhaust them. Thus you can't prove anything, you can only test and draw logical conclusions about those tests.

Can those test produce convincing results sure and in fact they can produce usable advancements in technology and products (which shouldn't be confused with the theory...cars aren't scientific theory ...they are results of tests which sought to determine some aspect of science)

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying science cannot ascertain truths, such as under this set of criteria you will obtain this result (hence the splitting of atoms and the atomic bomb) but that it can't take that result and say it proves theory. Only that the evidence "suggests" this to be true and that the results of our tests can be reproduced indefinitely with the same result.

Which is very different from saying it "proves" anything, no scientist will claim any test proves a theory.

It is just that, the evidence which is blatantly suggestive to a singular result which I can say are the things I believe about science, not the theories in whole or even as they are written.

Again I never said the earth was 6,000 years old or even 10,000 years old, neither of which are believable or proven true under Biblical analysis. The Bible offers nothing to suggest that those numbers are anything more than an estimate, which I happen to call...bull.

However when a scientist uses a flawed measurement of the "age" to tell me the age aspects of the universe and tries to tell me that this is how and when things happened. I call it the same thing, bull.

__________________

tsurara

Semantics... and even then it doesn't work since "round" doesn't imply a perfect sphere anyway (round - Definitions from Dictionary.com). A soccer ball isn't a perfect sphere either... it's not "round"? An egg's not round? An sheet of paper cut by a six-year old in the shape of a circle isn't round? It's still round (and we know that you can't "sail off the edge of it" like everyone used to think... and execute people for not believing). The only "proof" that should be required is the experience of having flown from the United States to Japan and then back in the other direction. I did it... and I didn't fall off.

I assure you, the earth is globular.

__________________

xbeyondxthexgravex

no i dont agree because Potassium-argon dating is a geochronological method used commonly to date geological events, particularly the eruption and cooling of igneous rocks and like carbon dating it is widely used by scientist.

But heres the catch Researchers found in Hawaii. A lava flow that is known to have taken place in 1800-1801 — less than 200 years ago — was dated by potassium-argon dating as being 2,960 million years old.

So i at least think plausible to say that carbon dating could be wrong and place a earth thats 10,000 or so years old to 4.54 billion or so years old and honestly i not sure how old the earth is but i do believe in the bible and i think it closer to 10,000 than 4.54 billion.

__________________

sig by me

Chiefblackhammer

Of course it is all semantics, but when someone says science can "prove" something they open themselves up to the "semantics" of that. Every discussion or debate has some aspect of it which covers the semantics involved. It would be no different than if I claimed a biblical reference as "proven." Someone would come by and call me on it because in fact I can't "prove it."

Also you didn't fall off the earth because gravity is constantly pulling towards the center of the earth at near equal proportions all over (at least that is what is said to be)... so it is that same gravity which would keep you from falling off even if the world was truly flat (supposedly).

Likewise it is gravity (supposedly) which gives the earth a spherical shape due to the near equal pull, I don't deny that at all, I am just saying is you can't say that it is "proven."

__________________

Miroku4444

No proof, what the heck do you call images from space? Even some redneck in Arkansas can see its round. thats proof in my books. If this was before 1969, i could see your argument. Also if it were flat wed reach a point in our travels of the earth where we couldn't go anymore. A big dead end so to speak.

If you want to get technical in that way, then yeah they can never prove anything. no one can test every possibility, I guess God is the only one that can do that. When i said proof, i mean proof as in excepted by the scientific community to be proven.

I dont know about you, but to me sounds like proof. I mean you theorize you can make this huge A** explosion. You type out how your theory works, you build the components to test your theory. Then your test it and see the results, and if your were right you get proof in the form of evidence. In this case you see a huge A** explosion.


Why because nowhere in the bible does it claim 10,000 to be the exact age. That estimate is just to make all those fables in it ring true.

__________________

anime_being_god

I agree more with what beyondxx is saying in this one. The 4.54 billion year old world just dont fly with me, thats extremely long time. And thru the method they had to come up with that seems almost impossible to know for certain

__________________

Miroku4444

Life just doesn't happen in a flash. It take eons and eons for life to develop and advance. The time we've been around is just a drop in the bucket in the history of the earth.

__________________

Scourge

What Miroku4444 is saying is true!! Like it or not, it is. People who deny all that he has said, all that I have said, all that others have said, the scientific community and their years of studies and test say and show with out even considering for an instant of different possibilities by putting fingers in their ears going LALALALALALA are all being stubborn and closed minded!! Now I am of faith, but I also believe in science and have an open mind to other possibilities and explanations. Call me a heretic, flood me with hate mail if you want I don’t give a rats a**!! You people who are being stubborn want to see a blue ball, but what we are finding out is that the blue ball is in fact a red square. Then they take the red square and trying to shove it through a round hole. For those who don’t understand my analogy. The red square represents the facts were are finding out, and the round hole is the people’s thoughts and ideas. There are many shapes of hole out there but a limited number of pieces that fit. The problem how ever is people who are focusing on one hole type and not the others. You can have a favorite shape but don’t neglect the others.
Now I am all for respecting other people opinions, thoughts and ideas, and faith but when they are unwilling to look at and even respect others and say what they think its nonsense, even when it’s backed up by facts is out right crazy!! If you people find this thread that frustrating because other people don’t believe that the world is flat like you do then just LEAVE!! Leave those who are open minded who want to hear other peoples thoughts and opinions, be it on creationism or big bang, leave them alone!! Because all your doing is turning what was meant to be an INTELAGENT discussion into a pis*ing contest.

Now I know I am most likely going to be flagged for this but all I am doing is trying to save this thread from turning into a boxing ring because I want to hear what others have to say, be it on a religious stand point or a scientific one. So all I am asking is be respectful, put your 2 cense in, and move along, come back and take others criticism as construct and not insulting.

Now then... The world cannot be 6,000 or even 10,000 years old, and here is a good reason why. Humans, be it Neanderthaw, cromagnum, or any other primitive Humans have been around longer then 10,000 years. Hell dinosars have been around sense 65,000,000 million years ago. Now I am not good with math but even I know 65mil years is way longer then 10K.

dark1angel

Oh i understand it now, it just took me a day to figure it out up to this point now. So the creation of the world you say, hmm that is indeed a big one i heard just a few days ago, well the idea i believe in is how everything stood in one whole place rather then being shattered into pieces that has been seperated into tiny bits of crusts. The standing point i do see is the how everything works out in groups even as a whole country being helpful to others, that has been my idea into leading others. Up to this point there is no way for me to dream of that, since there are just a few wars going on and i do not want to bring that up due to the fact that is not part of this subject. The creation i see is only people developing more support to others and helping the need, that is what i truly see the firm standing point.

__________________

Getting away from conflicts can get you far, but also can get you into more chaos.
|アスタロス|

xbeyondxthexgravex

Like i said befor i am not sure how old the earth is but I think it is closer to 10,000 years old and as for the Neanderthals, and Cro-magnon acording to a 2003 study the Cro-Magnon is just a human and the Neanderthals is now believed not to even be human or an even an ancestors of humans.

And as for dinosaurs we only think their 65 mil years old because of Carbon dating and we dont even know how accurate that is plus the bible has accounts of dinosaurs

and just like the earth i dont know exactly how long the bible has been around but i but i know that in 1820s, when Gideon Mantell, an English doctor, found some unusual teeth and bones in a quarry the story of dinosaurs begain so if we did not know of dinos until 1820 but the bible did how does that add up

__________________

sig by me

tsurara

Hindsight is 20/20

We didn't know about dinosaurs existance until the late 1800s... and yet we have numerous myths about dragons, sea monsters, etc. that could easily be "spun" into stories about "dinosaurs".

Look at how much people WANT to believe in the Loch Ness Monster even though we've sonared the whole lake, have fitted it with cameras and have proven nearly every image false. If people want evidence enough: they find it. And heck... even Nessie has, in the public imagination, transformed into a dinosaur lost in time (in spite of very likely not existing at all).

The reality is, the Bible doesn't make a definative statement one way or another about the existance of a race of lizards that died off before we set foot on the planet: rather it suggests the existance of a rare breed of "dragons" that co-existed with humans and ocaisionally required smiting of the St. Michael sort.

Saying that the Bible talks about dinosaurs and knew about them before we did is sort of like saying the ancient Olmecs, Mayans, Aztecs, Dark Age Europeans, Celts, Norsemen, ancient Africans etc. were all "in" on the dinosaur thing (and co-existed with them) because they all have myths about big lizards ocaisionally stomping out of the shadows to kill virgins, bring rain or denote the coming of another world. Yes, we might be able to compare these myths to dinosaurs in retrospect... but how much confidence can we place in that argument considering the context in which it's being made and a near complete lack of standing evidence to back it up?

__________________