Darkhyve:


Even if the pastors and imams confirm it they'd still label it blasphemous.....

Imagine trying to back up a flat earth theory with biblical verses?

Do you know thay early proponents of a 'round' earth were Christians? Heliocentricity was championed by Christian scientists (Keppler and co) who were able to challenge the scientific 'FACT' of the day called geocentricity.

Now, do you know that atheists also are proponents of flat earths today?

I guess you think that religious folks are always against science when Nobel Prize says otherwise.

planetx:
Earth is not billions of years old or was there any dinosaurs roaming 82 millions years ago all of this is just to discount the idea that there was a creator that created this world and everything therein.

There were dinos as their fossils (not to be confused with full skeleton sha) have been discovered. But these fossils don't interpret themselves, MAN does that through whatever paradigm he works with and the ruling paradigm right now is that of evolution.

Iheuwaneme:


And you think all the scientists are atheists? You think there are no Christian or Moslems among those scientists?

That's what some of them think - that science (a profession) and religion (say Christianity) are words and opposite. They should go see Nobel Prize winners

BabaIbo:


You're ignorant.

Not all scientists believe in evolution.

Carbon dating has errors, there have been cases where it was carried out on substances which their year of formation are known and it dated it to another year.
Most of you shouting carbon dating ate ignoramus in that field but you are on this forum ranting.

The error is in equating Science and atheism. If that wrong premise is held on to, then it'll be difficult for such people to make meaningful statements, no matter how smart they may be.

Your second paragraph is not known to many of them also.
Weldon Sir

Buliwyf:


Like I said keep barking. You only exposed your stupidity. Anyone who believes the world is flat cannot expose anyone here. Sweet mugu. Bark harder. I like hearing you bark.

mr science and mr educated pls show him that he is stupid by refusing his flat earth proven fact instead of trowing insults. Stop disgracing your education and shaming your parents for spending so much on your education and yet you know nothing... Coward.

BabaIbo:


I chose not to argue with any one here because I have a strong feeling that most of them here are are ignorant of what carbon dating is all about but they are here shouting carbon dating, when most of them can't even mention any of the equipment or apparatus used in the process.

Carbon dating has errors.

God bless you Sir

Pelecius:

Finally, I see someone that explains what is going on. Thumbs up Sir

Now, the problem here is rejection of anything which challenges this assumptions and this is not scientific. The uniformitarian dogma has gradually turned into a religion that must be protected at all cost because "...we can not allow a diving foot" as Prof Richard Lewontin said.

Of course, there are many discoveries that point to earth being 'young' with the doctrine of uniformism but again, those have to be discarded. Now, this again is not science. It'll definitely take serious 'miracle' before a long held scientific 'fact' is over turned by another

To simply dismiss an alternative explanation without investigating it is unscientific.

The big bang theory was originally proposed by a physicist who was also a Catholic priest. The reason it has the name "bigbang" was an attempt by his colleagues to mock his ridiculous theory of an expanding universe. Before Edwin Hubble's discovery of the redshift of light from stars which gave credibility to the theory.

Same with germ theory, which is now a fact that germs exist, but people of the time dismissed the idea and in an attempt to disprove it, ended up doing the exact opposite and proved it to correct.

So I'm not necessarily against the young earth, flat earth, creationism hypothesis, but it lacks experiments, observations and/or evidence (which are not simply text from a religious book with no way to verify them) to be taken seriously over the alternative. If and when proponents of those hypothesis can provide proof that withstands scrutiny and the scientific method, then they are welcomed. It would be nice to live to see a major scientific theory, get over hauled by a more better theory in my life time like how plate tectonics theory over hauled the previously believed hollow earth theory.

TimCook:


It's not the same people who laid cables for transmission that said the earth is flat. There are different arms of science. Ben Carson, who's a good and well known doctor probably has no idea what goes on in space. That's cause that's not his field. He deals in medicine and surgery. Someone who's a mechanical engineer, civil engineer etc. can be good in their field and have no idea what goes on in space. Radio frequency, transmission is mainly done by telecommunications engineers, and has nothing to do with space science, astronomy etc. I minored in it, so I know.

I'm an atheist, and the big bang theory and theory of evolution are absolute bullshit. You don't need to believe in God to see through the bias. I've meet some other atheist/agnostics who share the same view both online (on Quora, Tumblr) and offline.

That you think the theories are true doesn't make you smarter than any other persons, whether religious or irreligious. IQ TEST DON'T MEAN MUCH IN THE REAL WORLD. Just the same way you can't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, or judge humans but how well they perform in the classroom. You also can use IQ test as a valid measure of intelligence.

I am tempted to say God bless you even when you don't believe in God.
Like I said before, many folks wrongly equate Science and Atheism and I don't just know where such claim come from.

I love how you differentiated operational science from historical science again for them. You have my respect Sir. It's another fallacy to equate them together in the name of Science. I've read about established Astronomers/Astrophysicists who claim that that those who study the field should not regard themselves as Scientists. I get their arguments since most of their observations cannot be repeatedly tested in the lab as all operational science could be

Barney001:


Funny thing is that the white guys were the one who wrote all this down...and brought it to your doorstep... How do you know it was exactly moses who penned down all these details...

Or did God tell you that...?

How people believe that the Bible was written by the white guys still baffles me.

Pelecius:

I've been reading comments all along but I need to come in here. Info from stars or galaxies that are Light years does not mean that the earth is billions of years old. I didn't expect you to make such error. It is normally used to calculate distance from where such 'info' is coming from (i.e, the star, galaxy, etc)

Don't get it wrong, that is not the only data used but part of the things put in consideration .
And yes, from distance and speed, u can estimate time...

IMAliyu:

To simply dismiss an alternative explanation without investigating it is unscientific.

The big bang theory was originally proposed by a physicist who was also a Catholic priest. The reason it has the name "bigbang" was an attempt by his colleagues to mock his ridiculous theory of an expanding universe. Before Edwin Hubble's discovery of the redshift of light from stars which gave credibility to the theory.

Same with germ theory, which is now a fact that germs exist, but people of the time dismissed the idea and in an attempt to disprove it, ended up doing the exact opposite and proved it to correct.

So I'm not necessarily against the young earth, flat earth, creationism hypothesis, but it lacks experiments, observations and/or evidence (which are not simply text from a religious book with no way to verify them) to be taken seriously over the alternative. If and when proponents of those hypothesis can provide proof that withstands scrutiny and the scientific method, then they are welcomed. It would be nice to live to see a major scientific theory, get over hauled by a more better theory in my life time like how plate tectonics theory over hauled the previously believed hollow earth theory.

I guess you may not be familiar with the evidence that have been brought forward by proponents of young earthers, even by using the principle of uniformism to interpret the available data. Again, the problem here is the paradigm. All scientists have paradigm in which they interpret available data since this data is same whether you are an evolutionist or creationist. And since evolution is the ruling paradigm now, any evidence that poses threat to it is being rejected apriori and will never get through for publication. This has been documented in some other form of peer reviewed journal. It even get worse that once a Scientist retracts his support for evolution, he risks so many things like being denied his tenure or worse. So it's not that evolution is dismissed without investigation but that evidence which challenges it are being dismissed without investigation. This is why I said it'll take a miracle for a ruling paradigm to be overturned.

Pelecius:

Do you know thay early proponents of a 'round' earth were Christians? Heliocentricity was championed by Christian scientists (Keppler and co) who were able to challenge the scientific 'FACT' of the day called geocentricity.

Now, do you know that atheists also are proponents of flat earths today?

I guess you think that religious folks are always against science when Nobel Prize says otherwise.

No sir I did not think that and I wasn't generalising, when I said 'they" I wasn't actually referring to everyone

I'm well aware of the fact that we have Christian scientists.
I followed NASA's page on Facebook book so I'm also well aware of the ignorant atheists who think the moon landings were faked and they just churn up some bullshit conspiracy theory. They'll go to the extent of saying earth is on the back of a giant flying turtle....I read so much bullshit from Atheists and Religious people alike including their regular fights and arguments that I got fed up and I had to unfollow them

I'm a Christian myself.

The point I tried to make was that most religious people would just argue blindly insisting on things that aren't true and misquoting the Bible to support it....

I remember someone arguing wite that Israel is God's chosen people and that no nation can defeat them in war not even USA, this lady did not change her stance on this issue until I mentioned that even in the Bible Israel lost a few wars, then she said "If God wills it"....

I've heard of someone claiming that her genotype can't be SS because she's been prayed for by a pastor despite her medical reports being right in her face....

I'm sure you must have noticed that even on this thread a few are opposing this discovery based on religious beliefs alone...

So that's why I said that previously.

EmeraldKing7:

Fact:The Earth is 4.5 billion years old
Our specie “homo sapiens” hasn't been on this planet for less than 200,000 years ago

If you doubt evolution,baba take micro organisms for example.

Chloroquine was stopped being used as malaria drug years ago because the parasite that causes malaria “Plasmodium falciparum” being immune to the drug.
Bacteria are now getting immune to antibiotics.
How is that possible you may ask?
Virus, bacteria...etc after sometime under go Mutuation in order to adapt to their environment

If micorganisms can survive by means of natural selection,why can't we humans?

Still doubt evolution?
What is the function of the Appendix in our body?

Bro, calling it fact does not make it one. It is only the best interpretation (using evolution, uniformitarianism) of available data.

Antibiotic resistance is not evolution (please refer to General Theory of Evolution) because speciation cannot be called evolution. It is even a strong argument for Scientists who believe in God.

I don’t get your “if micro organisms can survive by means of natural selection, why can’t we humans?” what has that question got to do with evolution?

Appendix being useless is an example of making wrong conclusion because of the evolutionary paradigm. Read about so called vestigial organs and junk DNAs.

Pelecius:

I guess you may not be familiar with the evidence that have been brought forward by proponents of young earthers, even by using the principle of uniformism to interpret the available data. Again, the problem here is the paradigm. All scientists have paradigm in which they interpret available data since this data is same whether you are an evolutionist or creationist. And since evolution is the ruling paradigm now, any evidence that poses threat to it is being rejected apriori and will never get through for publication. This has been documented in some other form of peer reviewed journal. It even get worse that once a Scientist retracts his support for evolution, he risks so many things like being denied his tenure or worse. So it's not that evolution is dismissed without investigation but that evidence which challenges it are being dismissed without investigation. This is why I said it'll take a miracle for a ruling paradigm to be overturned.

I don't think a scientist or researcher needs to believe in certain theories to be credible an example is evolution, if he/she deals in technology, engineering, math, physics or chemistry that usually have no application for the theory of evolution, so people wouldn't really care about that.

It's the life sciences that apply the theory of evolution and you're going to have a hard time in them when you are public about your opposition to it, I won't deny that some people can get religious about evolution and don't consider something else maybe the cause, but I personally look at observations around it rather than the theory itself such as natural selection (which can be observed), sexual selection, mutation, speciation and adaptation in animals and other living organisms which all have relatively strong evidence for them.

Darkhyve:





No sir I did not think that and I wasn't generalising, when I said 'they" I wasn't actually referring to everyone

I'm well aware of the fact that we have Christian scientists.
I followed NASA's page on Facebook book so I'm also well aware of the ignorant atheists who think the moon landings were faked and they just churn up some bullshit conspiracy theory. They'll go to the extent of saying earth is on the back of a giant flying turtle....I read so much bullshit from Atheists and Religious people alike including their regular fights and arguments that I got fed up and I had to unfollow them

I'm a Christian myself.

The point I tried to make was that most religious people would just argue blindly insisting on things that aren't true and misquoting the Bible to support it....

I remember someone arguing wite that Israel is God's chosen people and that no nation can defeat them in war not even USA, this lady did not change her stance on this issue until I mentioned that even in the Bible Israel lost a few wars, then she said "If God wills it"....

I've heard of someone claiming that her genotype can't be SS because she's been prayed for by a pastor despite her medical reports being right in her face....

I'm sure you must have noticed that even on this thread a few are opposing this discovery based on religious beliefs alone...

So that's why I said that previously.

I get your points sir and it is really sad that many religious folks don't even know that Christians were the founding fathers of what we call modern science and they always feel that a science is antithesis of Religion (Christianity especially).
I also don't like it when folks tend to even 'create God in their image' to do their bidding just like the SS genotype you mentioned and it is sadly true that folks tend to attack discoveries based on religious beliefs alone.
Thank you for your warm response.
God bless you Sir

dazzlingd:


Don't get it wrong, that is not the only data used but part of the things put in consideration .
And yes, from distance and speed, u can estimate time...

I was only trying to point out that those info have nothing to do with the age of the earth, though could be used to infer that the universe (of which the earth is part) is old. The time calculated is just the time for that info to reach the earth.
Anyway, it's nice 'seeing' you again

IMAliyu:

I don't think a scientist or researcher needs to believe in certain theories to be credible an example is evolution, if he/she deals in technology, engineering, math, physics or chemistry that usually have no application for the theory of evolution, so people wouldn't really care about that.

It's the life sciences that apply the theory of evolution and you're going to have a hard time in them when you are public about your opposition to it, I won't deny that some people can get religious about evolution and don't consider something else maybe the cause, but I personally look at observations around it rather than the theory itself such as natural selection (which can be observed), sexual selection, mutation, speciation and adaptation in animals and other living organisms which all have relatively strong evidence for them.

I'll just deal with the second paragraph. it's true that life science is the bedrock of evolution, but it has spilled over to other scientific discipline such as geology, astronomy, and it is the paradigm used in interpreting data in archeology, palenteology and other forms of historical science.
Again, the mechanisms you mentioned are actually strengths for creation model and flaws for evolution but evolutionists usually apply the Switch-and-Bait tactic and resort to this well proven mechanisms to 'show' that over millions of years, a paramecium can turn to a paramedic (smiles). Mutation, adaptation and natural selection can definitely lead to speciation but this involve variation in the available genome present in the organism but no known mechanism can gradually make an organism to add a new structure to it (say feather developing from scales) and the origin of information is still a problem that is yet to be solved. What about irreducible complexity?

EMILO2STAY:
mr science and mr educated pls show him that he is stupid by refusing his flat earth proven fact instead of trowing insults. Stop disgracing your education and shaming your parents for spending so much on your education and yet you know nothing... Coward.

A dog that believes the earth is flat wants to rub shoulders with human beings. I am not willing to throw you a bone. Bark louder and if I am happy with how loud you bark I might just throw you one.

Pelecius:

The error is in equating Science and atheism. If that wrong premise is held on to, then it'll be difficult for such people to make meaningful statements, no matter how smart they may be.

Your second paragraph is not known to many of them also.
Weldon Sir

That's just it...

Thank you and God bless.

Buliwyf:


A dog that believes the earth is flat wants to rub shoulders with human beings. I am not willing to throw you a bone. Bark louder and if I am happy with how loud you bark I might just throw you one.

see how you have reduced yourself to a shamless fool who can't rebut a dog. Mr educated cannot present one single rebuttal to a dogs proven factual claims yet calls himself educated shame,.. shame,.. shame. It seem throwing verbal abuses is what you learned in school Shameless coward.

Pelecius:

I'll just deal with the second paragraph. it's true that life science is the bedrock of evolution, but it has spilled over to other scientific discipline such as geology, astronomy, and it is the paradigm used in interpreting data in archeology, palenteology and other forms of historical science.
Again, the mechanisms you mentioned are actually strengths for creation model and flaws for evolution but evolutionists usually apply the Switch-and-Bait tactic and resort to this well proven mechanisms to 'show' that over millions of years, a paramecium can turn to a paramedic (smiles). Mutation, adaptation and natural selection can definitely lead to speciation but this involve variation in the available genome present in the organism but no known mechanism can gradually make an organism to add a new structure to it (say feather developing from scales) and the origin of information is still a problem that is yet to be solved. What about irreducible complexity?

Well done Sir.

Pelecius:

I get your points sir and it is really sad that many religious folks don't even know that Christians were the founding fathers of what we call modern science and they always feel that a science is antithesis of Religion (Christianity especially).
I also don't like it when folks tend to even 'create God in their image' to do their bidding just like the SS genotype you mentioned and it is sadly true that folks tend to attack discoveries based on religious beliefs alone.
Thank you for your warm response.
God bless you Sir

Amen
Thank you sir
God bless you too
Happy Sunday in advance

Pelecius:

The error is in equating Science and atheism. If that wrong premise is held on to, then it'll be difficult for such people to make meaningful statements, no matter how smart they may be.

Your second paragraph is not known to many of them also.
Weldon Sir

Thank you Sir.

IMAliyu:

Carbon dating isn't the only form of dating.
There are different types of radiometric dating with a varying accuracy range.
Such as uranium dating with a 2-5% margin of error, used to date things far older.

Still they are all touring the same path

Buliwyf:


Not just carbon dating alone. There is radiometric dating and other tools.

They are still touring the same path

Pelecius:

Bro, calling it fact does not make it one. It is only the best interpretation (using evolution, uniformitarianism) of available data.

Antibiotic resistance is not evolution (please refer to General Theory of Evolution) because speciation cannot be called evolution. It is even a strong argument for Scientists who believe in God.

I don’t get your “if micro organisms can survive by means of natural selection, why can’t we humans?” what has that question got to do with evolution?

Appendix being useless is an example of making wrong conclusion because of the evolutionary paradigm. Read about so called vestigial organs and junk DNAs.

Bro many theories on the use of the Appendix have arised but till today,fact remains that the Appendix is literally useless in the body... that's why we can live without it

I stand on my ground that it's an an evolutionary trait we acquired from our from previous specie...

As for your claim on Antibiotics resistance look down bro.

EmeraldKing7:

Bro many theories on the use of the Appendix have arised but till today,fact remains that the Appendix is literally useless in the body... that's why we can live without it

I stand on my ground that it's an an evolutionary trait we acquired from our from previous specie...

As for your claim on Antibiotics resistance look down bro.

That of course is a redherring. My argument was that due to dogmatism of evolution, it was believed for so long that appendix is a vestigial organ. Now, we know that it is not a vestigial organ but actually has a function. Just as junk DNA was popularized because it would add credence to evolution but later found out that functions of most are now known.
Also, you should know that recent studies show a link between removal of appendix and Parkinson's disease. Just like many observation in Physiology, it will need more studies to completely verify it.

"...acquired from our (your?) previous SPECIE"?

It is a Bait-and-Switch tactic to call change evolution. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria does not turn them to another organism. The principle involved is well known and I will give a simple analogy. Studies have shown that those with the AA genotype are susceptible to malaria attack which could be deadly. A mutation caused it to have a another shape (SS) which the malaria causing parasite cannot bind to again. If the mutation does not actually cause other problems for those with it, making them sickly; then they would have been immune to the parasite (resistance) and those with AA may be wiped out by the parasite (natural selection). Then, we can now say that those that survived have evolved from those with AA genotype when they are still human

Buliwyf:


Mumu pikin. All your pastors that died of Coronavirus nko? Sense far from this one. I thought you were arguing that science doesn't work but your religion does. Now you are bringing up conspiracy and baseless theories. Guy go sleep. You have been foolish for more than 24 hours. That's a bad sign.

I feel so sorry for you. Some day you'll remember all the evil you have spoken against the Church of Jesus Christ, its members and its ministers, and I sincerely pray that God remove the scales from your eyes that you may finally see that its the Church that is the only power restraining absolute evil and total anihilation of the human race. You may not know it, but your words and actions against Christians were dictated to you by demons from the spirit realm, and because you have let them have access to your thoughts you have become unreasonable and insultive. God have mercy on you.

MansoryMX:


Where was your Bible and Quoran when Coronavirus hit the earth? If not for scientist working day in and day out all of una nor hide inside house? Yes you! I am talking to you

Where was you dad and mum when you lost you brain?