I thought the world was only 5 million years old...

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BigNeko

Senior member
Jun 16, 2001
455
0
0
Moonbeam,
From what I have read, you are usually pretty rational and level-headed. However, you seem somewhat out-of-sorts about this subject.

As to the age of the Earth. I need to read Genesis again. A person I know said that a day for God was a 1000 years for us. Well, I need to find the appropriate passage(s). (Little help for a lazy person)
 

BigNeko

Senior member
Jun 16, 2001
455
0
0
Moonbeam,
From what I have read, you are usually pretty rational and level-headed. However, you seem somewhat out-of-sorts about this subject.

As to the age of the Earth. I need to read Genesis again. A person I know said that a day for God was a 1000 years for us. Well, I need to find the appropriate passage(s). (Little help for a lazy person)
 

NoDamage

Member
Oct 7, 2000
65
0
0


<< Shrinking Sun- "By analyzing data from Greenwich [Observatory] in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician from Boston) have found evidence that the Sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet an hour. Digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage." Physics Today reported in 1979. Extrapolation from these numbers leads us to believe that 100,000 years ago the sun would have been twice its current size, making life on earth unthinkable. 100 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were supposedly roaming the earth, the sun's perimeter would have extended well beyond the earth's current position. One can only conclude from this finding that the earth is beyond all reasonable doubt younger than 100,000 years old. >>

Please refrain from posting this type of garbage in the future. First of all, it is a blatant lie. This claim has been thoroughly debunked multiple times yet people still seem to repeat it. In fact, pretty much every single one of the claims posted on your website has been exposed as lying garbage multiple times already. That's the funny thing about the internet, anyone can write pure and utter garbage, post it on their little webpage, and there will always be one or two people that believe in.

Try looking at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html#_Toc430357875
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html



<< no matter how you look at it, it's a gray issue. >>

No, it is most definitely NOT a gray issue. At all. The only problem is certain people tend to perpetuate lies and misinformation, causing those who have not done their own research to be deceived.

By the way, check out this list of arguments that even Answers in Genesis has abandoned. They've got quite a bit of stuff in there, even the moon dust one.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
No, you're wrong. It takes both high heat, high pressure, and time.. to form diamonds naturally inside the earth.

 

xirtam

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2001
4,693
0
0
High heat, high pressure, less time required. Lower pressure and lower heat takes more time.
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
Eli, here's a cut and paste from the other thread on dating methods:

In order to declare an absolute date you need to know:
a) the amount of the parent isotope at the beginning of the specimen's existence
b) whether there were any daughter isotopes present at the beginning
c) whether parent or daughter isotopes were added or removed
d) that the decay rate from parent to daughter isotope has always been the same
sources: 1, 2, 3
Notice on the third link how he initially states in regards to the priciples of C14 dating that: "Radiocarbon dating has become one of the most widely known and, perhaps, the most useful absolute archaeological dating method." and then goes on to state the limitations, thus negating the absoluteness of the dating method.
It is therefore clear that radiocarbon dating is not absolute nor will it ever be without the invention of the time machine.

In regards to the issue of circularity in the dating game (ie: the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks) on talk origins this statement is made "Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation)." That statement implies that the author was physically and mentally aware of how every evolutionary date was arrived at, an impossibility. Was it based on arrogance and blind faith towards the theory of evolution, you be the judge.
Nonetheless, he then goes on to prove that circular reasoning is involved in the dating of the fossils when he says"When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.

If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong.""

Later...
Dave
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,614
796
136
Moonbeam, I think you've become guilty of the blind certainty you deride Petrek for. The very basic difference between religiously-based beliefs like his and scientifically-based beliefs like yours (and mine) is that religious beliefs start with the answer and incorporate only information that support that answer, while scientific beliefs accept all information and tentatively selects an answer that best matches that information. This means that religious beliefs can never change, while scientific beliefs change all the time as new information becomes available. There's no reason to not listen to arguments against the current theory of evolution as we know it today; if the arguments made by creationists about carbon dating, etc. are without merit, the theory will be unchanged -- if they have merit, then they set us on the road to a better scientific theory. One thing's pretty certain -- our understanding of the evolutionary process will be much better in 100 years. This advancement over time is the central beauty of the scientific process, especially when compared to stagnation inherent in religious beliefs derived from divine revelation. IMHO.

All that said, I like to test people on the opposite side of any argument to tell me what it would take to change their minds. If they respond that nothing can change their minds, then I know I'm wasting my time trying to explain my point of view to them. And I do ask myself the same question in order to see if I'm wasting theirs :)
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< Sigh.

You know Elledan, you are the single most impossible person to have a rational conversation with that I know. I have a VERY low tolerance for your veiled insults ("you suffer from superstition") and dripping condescension.
>>

I'm very sorry I insulted you, but it was the only conclusion I could make.


<< I've honestly, in all my debates with rational, respectful atheists/agnostics, never run into one so irrational in terms of getting emotional so quickly. >>

*grin*

Strange, I'm usually considered to be a cold-hearted Borg drone, devoid of emotion, by those I discuss something with.

If you would have read the thread I created some time ago ('Are Human illogical by nature?'), you would have read about how I differ from most Humans. I can not help but speak in rather dogmatic terms, because of the limits language imposes on me. I've noticed very often that people simply don't understand my way of reasoning, yet I'm not insane.



<< Yes Elledan - emotional. YOU get emotional because you CANNOT stop yourself oozing smugness, superiority, condescension, mockery, etc. These are self-defense mechanisms, used consciously or sub-consciously as forms of agression in instances of conflict. >>

Uhm, like I explained above, I wasn't attacking you at all. You don't comprehend what I told you. You don't understand me.



<< These are acts of agression, whether you acknowledge them as such or not. Aggression is born from emotional fear. >>

Hah! I'm everything but afraid. You made a statement, I responded to it, listing some reasons why your blind faith is irrational, yet you immediately attack, because you feel threatened. By what?

I'm not interested in what you believe, I'm only interested in why you put faith in something so irrational.



<< Now, your immediate defense will be to deny that you started on the offensive:


<< You just made that up, right? >>

- accusation of intentional untruth


<< You accept a strange combination... Your mistake...I, and many others, accept... >>

- thinly veiled attempt to discredit me personally, as abnormal.
>>

No, it was an observation. Tell me how I could have said it otherwise. It's a mere fact.


<<

<< You therefore suffer from superstition. >>

- direct accusation of mental inferiority in your opponent.
>>

No, a logical conclusion, based on the reasoning I listed.



<< All the above were directed at me personally, not at the arguments. >>

I made an observation, followed by a reasoning and the only logical conclusion.


<< Not much at all considering the flames that usually rage around here, but more than enough for me to recognize a pattern of agression from you in past debates. >>

You're defending yourself here.



<< Yes - I've gotten aggressive with you too in the past. We didn't get anywhere those times either. I decided to stop taking the bait. >>

Bait? Wow...




<< I'm sort of expecting something along the lines of "You didn't respond because you couldn't...", so:

I have a full, and civilized, response to the content of your last post where I discuss observation methods being influenced by preference, the reduction of thought to the absurd, your instant relegation of anything outside the 5 physical senses as "metaphysics", the fact that the acceptance of the method by which we obtain evidence - and the acceptance of those methods - is subject to personal judgement, etc...
>>

Uh uh, that's why science is so divided about everything. Of course not. Everyone generally agrees on what is acceptable evidence.


<< But it is impossible and pointless to continue with you once you go on the offensive. Really, if you can just let go of the fear/anger/aggression response to rational discussion (yes, even when you don't agree with your opponent - you usally won't, you know) we could discuss things a lot longer than we do. >>

Like I pointed out, I did not attack you personally. I judged your mental state.



<< << Not trying to flame you, just pointing something out >>

Have a nice day. :)
>>

Yeah, same to you...

But I'm still curious: what evidence did you find that you prefer the 'god-theory' over the 'aliens-from-another-universe-theory'?

You can't deny that there's no way to gain evidence other than by observations, experiments and mathematics.
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
PowerEngineer, I accept the KJV Bible is the literal word of God and therefore if you can prove to me that God lies in the Bible, then God is not who He claims to be (ie: all knowing) and can't be trusted at all. And I'd be happy to conduct a rational and reasoning debate on the subject.

Dave
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,913
6,790
126
BigNeko, Which side of the argument, I'm on both, do you think is out of sorts. :D Here are a couple of my posts:

petrek, I don't want to go back and read those posts. I'm not inspired to. I feel it would
be a waste of my time. I am a complete closed minded bigot. I am absolutely sure I am right
and you are wrong. So sure that I have no interest in arguing. Why would I? You have no
case. I have looked at the evidence before me in the earth and in DNA. We don't go back to
a five thousand year old Eve. She is way way older, but I don't care. Unlike you I am not
serious, even though I too don't care whether you have ten degrees and everybody believes
in creationism. I was taught that evolution is the truth. It's in my textbooks and that's
the end of it. My testbooks can't be wrong. They are based on science. Science says a steam
engine or a car or a plane will work. Do you want to ruin everything and say that science
is wrong. Do you want to wake up tomorrow with industry at a standstill because all the
machines stopped. Do you want the planets flying off into space because science is wrong.
Please think about your herasy. Science is right. It's got to be right or it's the end of
the world. If we didn't evolve we could just disappear like that. The universe is sustained
by a gigantic mutually agreed upon mass psychosis. Don't rock the boat.
petrek, what are we going to do with you. Nothing, not all the evidence that is the world,
can convince you of anything but what you want to believe, and nothing that you can say
will convince the vast majority of people to think anything other than where ordinary
scientific principles point to, an ancient earth. Somebody is deluded and my money says
it's you.

Eli, that was a nice reasonable try you made there, but the half life of radioisatopes has
to be in error because the universe is only 6000 years old. Please try to understand that
any and all evidence that the earth is over 6000 years old is completely wrong, one way or
the other because it says in the bible that the earth is only 6000 years old and that's the
end of it. You have got to get it through your noodle that the Bible can't be wrong. If the
Bible is wrong then, if the Bible is wrong, then................. Well it can't be wrong.
There was a huge flood, Eli, and thats when sea shells got on top of mountains and
canyons got dug, etc. It's right in the bible.

Sometimes when I get tired of arguing with people in a box I get in one too so I don't have ALL the fun.

PowerEngineer, I think your answer is here too. Not only am I guilty, I intend to be. Your post is one I could have written, still support mind you, but did make maybe several thousand posts back. You may find that you too, with time, make the 'waste of time' call, more quickly with lots of practice. petrek likes to argue. What he might actually be able to profit from is seeing himself in the mirror. To look like him I have to take heat from you. I don't mind looking like a fool. petrek is worth it. The question isn't so much to me whether they can change their minds. How would they know. The question is, what do they think they have to loose clinging to a thousand pounds of cabbage. What would change if they let go.


 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
PowerEngineer, I'll give you some of my beliefs aquired through the literal interpretation of the KJV Bible:

1) I believe the world is about 6,000 years old.

2) I believe Jesus Christ is, was, and will always be God

3) I believe the Jewish people are God's choosen people and are a witness to the world of His existance. And that while many Jews will spend eternity in Hell for their unbelief many will accept Christ and be Saved.

4) I believe Noah spent 100 years building the ark.

5) I believe it did not rain prior to the flood. And that the flood was worldwide.

6) I believe dinosaurs existed alongside man.

7) I believe the world was created in 6 literal days.

8) I believe God exists apart from His creation.

9) I believe Satan exists as an angel of light and is the god of this world. And that Satan is the wisest and most knowledgable of all of God's creations.

10) I believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are One. (a good analogy I heard was that they are like man in that I have a body, soul, and spirit)

11) I believe that Salvation is by Grace alone through Faith alone, and that it is not of works lest any man should boast.

Dave
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0


<< Half a century ago, the common scientific viewpoint was that the age of the earth was around 200 hundred million years. Now it's 17 billion. That's an 8500% increase in 50 years, or 170% per year. Should I conclude that the earth's age increases 1.7 times every year? Extrapolate that one back, and the universe isn't that old... >>



No, Earth is not believe to be 17 billion years old, it's about 4.5 billion years. That number has been reached by several independendt scientists using different kinds of dating-techniques.



<< The more we observe, the more we see that if we are correct in our uniformitarianistic principles, the age of the earth and the age of the universe have to be a lot older to allow for evolution to produce everything it has. >>



Links? You do realize that 4.5 billion years is an awfully long time? Evolution had plenty of time to do it's work.
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
"What about the ~12,000 year old Creosote plant in California called the King Clone?"

"These satellite plants also continue to expand outward. Eventually a large ring of creosote plants forms. In southern California, a creosote ring 22 meters (70 feet) across has been found. The plants are really only one plant genetically. This one has been named "King Clone" and it has been radiocarbon dated to be 9,400 years old."Seen here
Once again radiocarbon dating.

"Uh, yeah, a tree can grow up to 5 rings a year, but they don't. Sometimes 2, and that would be considered a good year. If the cycle of the year goes right, it only buds once. Tree ring dating is accurate."

And I thought you accepted scientific facts.


"You say that carbon dating is flawed. How? Please explain to me. The half-life of Carbon-14, as I was saying, is 5730 years. Even if that figure was off, and it was only 5700, or even 5500 years, or what if it was 5800? The date would still be accurate to within several hundred years."

I did in my previous reply which I copied from the thread "poll: evolution vs creation"


"What about petrified wood? It takes thousands and thousands of years for the cells in the wood to become replaced by minerals."


Not necessarily, Google search "petrified wood creation".


"How can you ignore the fact that all of the continents fit together, like a puzzle? How long has it taken them to move to their current locations?"

as per rahvin's post "YOU CAN'T INTERPOLATE DATA BEYOND THE RANGE OF DATA COLLECTED" and if you do so you "attempt to convince the layman by BLATENTLY violating the rules!"

Later...
Dave

 

xirtam

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2001
4,693
0
0
The 17 billion figure was for the universe, Nemesis, not the earth. 4.5 billion years is enough for the earth now, but are you sure that's not going to be stretched further as we find more information that tells us, "Whoops! Um... this just isn't enough time for evolution to work!"

Half a century ago, when the world was 220 million years old, it had also been "independently verified by a number of techniques." Problem is, the dating techniques don't match each other. Scientists just agree on which technique to use in which circumstance to provide the answer they've already decided is correct. Have you ever done any radioactive dating?
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
To those who call themselves Christians:

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, Which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. This I say therfore, and testify in the LORD, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their own mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart"

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobediant to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisors of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: From such turnaway. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith."

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the pormise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Where by the world that than was, being overflowed with water perished: But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence."

"For many decievers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;...All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Bible quotes are from the King James Bible and are located at:Ephesians 4:14-18, 1 Corinthians 3:18-20, 2 timothy 3:1-8, 2 peter 3:3-9, 2 John 7-9, Isaiah 43:12, Matthew 7:21-23, 2 Timothy 3:12-14,16-4:4 respectively.
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< The 17 billion figure was for the universe, Nemesis, not the earth. 4.5 billion years is enough for the earth now, but are you sure that's not going to be stretched further as we find more information that tells us, "Whoops! Um... this just isn't enough time for evolution to work!"

Half a century ago, when the world was 220 million years old, it had also been "independently verified by a number of techniques." Problem is, the dating techniques don't match each other. Scientists just agree on which technique to use in which circumstance to provide the answer they've already decided is correct. Have you ever done any radioactive dating?
>>


You want to say that the bible is the more superior dating technique?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,913
6,790
126
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."

All that stuff you quote, petrek, was it offered as wisdom or foolishness?

It sounds alot like something that cult leaders say to keep the cult together.

By what means do we know that we aren't self deceived?

The rigidity of your ideas is amazing and painfully sad. It is such a pity that you could find no comfort in the less extreme. What could propel a mind to see almost the entire world as basically lost.

Your ideas look to me like a kind of mind cancer. But I guess they do provide a sense of self importance.
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
"All that stuff you quote, petrek, was it offered as wisdom or foolishness?"

As wisdom to the believer and foolishness to those of unbelief.

"It sounds alot like something that cult leaders say to keep the cult together."

Of course, few people are fooled by blatent lies, but many are fooled by half-truths.

"By what means do we know that we aren't self deceived?"

Thoughtful reasoning and the guidance of the Holy Spirit into all Truth.

"The rigidity of your ideas is amazing and painfully sad. It is such a pity that you could find no comfort in the less extreme. What could propel a mind to see almost the entire world as basically lost."

What comfort would I find in comprimising what I believe. If I comprimise what I believe to suit the needs of others I fail the one person I can count on at all times, namely Jesus Christ, who did not fail me and my need for a Saviour. The mind of God declares, " Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide the gate, and broad the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait the gate, and narrow the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." And this is why I endure the scoffing of my father, friends and most posters here, because what I endure is nothing compared to what Christ suffered for me, and because if I would not preach then how would the lost come to know Christ. For faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81


<<

<< Four hundred years ago, people were taught that the earth was flat. Anyone who dissented was branded a heretic and a scientific idiot. >>



400 years ago preceeded the elightenment and the rediscovery of the scientific method. For all intensive purposes there was no science. Those that believed the earth were flat were vastly in the ignorant masses (the ignorant religious masses actually). It could be argued that those that said the earth was round were in fact the scientists of their era. There was an egyptian scientist (he was a scientist because he used logic and a test to prove his theory) that figured out the diamter of the earth well before the BC.
>>



Who's to say that we're not all wrong now? After all, our science is based on observation; observation is subjective, and not always 100% accurate.
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<<

<<

<< Four hundred years ago, people were taught that the earth was flat. Anyone who dissented was branded a heretic and a scientific idiot. >>



400 years ago preceeded the elightenment and the rediscovery of the scientific method. For all intensive purposes there was no science. Those that believed the earth were flat were vastly in the ignorant masses (the ignorant religious masses actually). It could be argued that those that said the earth was round were in fact the scientists of their era. There was an egyptian scientist (he was a scientist because he used logic and a test to prove his theory) that figured out the diamter of the earth well before the BC.
>>



Who's to say that we're not all wrong now? After all, our science is based on observation; observation is subjective, and not always 100% accurate.
>>

Well, you had a better method in mind?

Fact is, that the idea of a 'flat earth' was discredited through observation.

As far as we know, there are no other ways of obtaining evidence than through observations, experiments and mathematics. Any suggestions are of course always welcome.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,913
6,790
126
petrek, I think yours is the wisdom of this world. It is what I have heard from the zelot and fanatic my whole life long. All your words are meant for you. When I hear your words I hear only hardness. I would rather know by love. Can you show me a gate more narrow than that?
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81


<<

<<

<<

<< Four hundred years ago, people were taught that the earth was flat. Anyone who dissented was branded a heretic and a scientific idiot. >>



400 years ago preceeded the elightenment and the rediscovery of the scientific method. For all intensive purposes there was no science. Those that believed the earth were flat were vastly in the ignorant masses (the ignorant religious masses actually). It could be argued that those that said the earth was round were in fact the scientists of their era. There was an egyptian scientist (he was a scientist because he used logic and a test to prove his theory) that figured out the diamter of the earth well before the BC.
>>



Who's to say that we're not all wrong now? After all, our science is based on observation; observation is subjective, and not always 100% accurate.
>>

Well, you had a better method in mind?

Fact is, that the idea of a 'flat earth' was discredited through observation.

As far as we know, there are no other ways of obtaining evidence than through observations, experiments and mathematics. Any suggestions are of course always welcome.
>>



The idea of a 'flat earth' was also based on observations. It's all relative.

Have you ever seen the structure of an atom? Do you know, from personal observation, that atoms are indeed what scientists describe them as?
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
Moonbeam, what is love, if not to do unto others what you would have them do unto you?