SegFault:

Yah. But the church believed that after the Earth comes heaven. I hope you know.

"Yah"?
Are you agreeing that the church never taught a flat earth or what?

"...After the earth comew the heaven"
You need to understand what the church taught about heavens first (notice the plural - heavens).
Secondly, what does the Bible say and how the church interpret it? Most times, the church may err when it forces the scientific consensus of a certain period on the bible as seen in the ptolemic geocentricity era as against heliocentricity. This is why it is very dangerous to dogmatically swallow info that are still being challenged as FACTS.

Pelecius:

"Yah"?
Are you agreeing that the church never taught a flat earth or what?

"...After the earth comew the heaven"
You need to understand what the church taught about heavens first (notice the plural - heavens).
Secondly, what does the Bible say and how the church interpret it? Most times, the church may err when it forces the scientific consensus of a certain period on the bible as seen in the ptolemic geocentricity era as against heliocentricity. This is why it is very dangerous to dogmatically swallow info that are still being challenged as FACTS.

I never saw anything like flat earth anywhere in the bible, but people would obviously have believed in it before Magellan sailed round the Earth. Though there were already proofs like the eclipse, the horizon and all.

Pelecius:


Radiocarbon dating on fossil? Do you expect to find any trace of carbon in a fossil? For crying out loud, these ages has nothing to do with carbon dating. It is more about using the geologic column (which has been found to be grossly misleading)

Really! You're asking if there's any trace of carbon in fossils? Do you even know what either/both carbon or fossil is at all? Do you know the process an organism has to go through to be called a fossil? If there's no trace of carbon in fossils, then which trapped carbon is released during the burning of fossil fuel? If you have a problem with dating techniques, how about you first try to understand half-life and it's applications.

Before you start throwing low blows, just know that geological works/research is what I do for a living and I only quoted you because of the misinformation on your entire submission.

SegFault:

It's not absolute of course it's an approximate, it could be millions shorter or longer but it gives you an idea of how far back it was.

Well, there are works that gives few thousands using same assumptions that all radiometric dating rely upon. Worse is there are rocks whose ages are known as when they were formed was recorded, yet radiometric dating gave millions of years again. This is why it is futile to call those who make mockery of it illiterates. The approximation is greatly exaggerated.
Finally, fossils are assigned dates and nor carbon dated especially if it has completely meneralized

Grandmeister:

Anything beyond recorded history is a guess...and a guess is anyone’s imagination.

Going by your logic, would I be wrong to say most accounts in the bible are mere guesses considering that a lot of the stories are not written by the people in such stories, rather by other people some odd hundreds of years later.

Moses wrote the book of Genesis despite not present during creation. Is that recorded history or guess?

Mind you, I am very much Christian but I am wise enough to know that scientific evidence is not an antithesis of biblical accounts.

Pelecius:


I laugh WUHANically when I see folks shout "Carbon dating!" for alleged millions of year old fossils. Worst, they claim to be the educated ones. It's just so pathetic and the quickly attack the Bible because some religious folks make mockery of the same age.

The thing dey mad me eh! There’s a reason many scientist believe that anything beyond 30,000 is just borderline guessing. That’s because the oldest known recorded histories(Sumerians and all) are just around that timeline. The yardsticks used in appointing a timeline using carbon dating was determined by man! Those properties were always there, it was man who assigned timelines to them! Now how can man assign a million year timeline to a carbon property that couldn’t be observed?? I thought science was all about observation? The Gregorian calendar And the time zones are a hundred times more accurate than carbon dating because the yardsticks used in assigning data to them were OBSERVED by man...it is because man could observe the seasons overtime that he was able to assign dates and calendars to them..man flew and then realised that there were different time zones and due to his OBSERVATION he was able to assign the various time zones in recent history. The only sure fire way to ascertain carbon dating is if we begin to observe the remains of a animal from today and continue observing it for the next 1 million years(!) then we can say for sure that those yardsticks used were (close to) accurate.

I would like to have the Mathematical formula used in calculating these millions of years because some of our footballers are very old and they claim to be under 21 and babes too who are in their 30s will claim to be 21. It is high time guys start calculating or estimating the actual years of today's slay queens.

destinable:


Really! You're asking if there's any trace of carbon in fossils? Do you even know what either/both carbon or fossil is at all? Do you know the process an organism has to go through to be called a fossil? If there's no trace of carbon in fossils, then which trapped carbon is released during the burning of fossil fuel? If you have a problem with dating techniques, how about you first try to understand half-life and it's applications.

Before you start throwing low blows, just know that geological works/research is what I do for a living and I only quoted you because of the misinformation on your entire submission.

It's cool that you are a geologist. If I may ask, do you expect to find any track of carbon (same isotope 14) in an organic material after 300,000 years?
The question you raised about releasing carbon in burning "fossil" fuels should be enough to challenge the millions of years attached to those things.
Again, carbon 14 have been found in some diamond which are believed to be formed billions of years. If it has a short half life, how do we expect it to be found in diamond that are billions of years?
The assumptions behind dating technique is another problem which has been raised but nothing must challenge the principle of uniformitarianism. Talk about axioms and paradigms

Macsjebs:
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8647513/A-15-foot-ichthyosaur-lived-240-million-years-ago-died-eating-12-foot-long-reptile.html

Nice one,
Seun, lalasticlala, is there a way u guys can put up a simple IQ test for people before they can comment on science related threads.
The people on fp are insulting and making a mockery of our reputation...A smart outsider who sees the comments will think all Nigerians are moronss...
Although, majority have low IQ but not all

People just showing how dumb and illiterate they are on this thread .i SMH for una matter

destinable:


Going by your logic, would I be wrong to say most accounts in the bible are mere guesses considering that a lot of the stories are not written by the people in such stories, rather by other people some odd hundreds of years later.

Moses wrote the book of Genesis despite not present during creation. Is that recorded history or guess?

Mind you, I am very much Christian but I am wise enough to know that scientific evidence is not an antithesis of biblical accounts.

Your question about Moses is a good one(because I am also a Christian). I have some doubts/questions in the things Moses wrote. Because some of them were the revelations he said God told him when he was alone and separated from the Israelites in the wilderness. But one thing I believe about Moses’s account(in genesis) is that this world we live in was designed and created by some people/someone with intelligence. I do NOT believe in the Big Bang theory neither do I believe in evolution.

Don't mind them. na themselves dem go dey fool

ReorxTohGan:
they have come again!!

SegFault:

Honestly true I swear, it's better to accept the fact that there are some things that we can never understand or know than to go on giving nonsense stories without good proof.

No mind them, the annoying thing about them is that they believe they are more intelligent than others.

Pelecius:

It's cool that you are a geologist. If I may ask, do you expect to find any track of carbon (same isotope 14) in an organic material after 300,000 years?
The question you raised about releasing carbon in burning "fossil" fuels should be enough to challenge the millions of years attached to those things.
Again, carbon 14 have been found in some diamond which are believed to be formed billions of years. If it has a short half life, how do we expect it to be found in diamond that are billions of years?
The assumptions behind dating technique is another problem which has been raised but nothing must challenge the principle of uniformitarianism. Talk about axioms and paradigms

Applications of half-life is not limited to Carbon-14 for dating techniques. There are other stable isotopes that are utilized for half-life.
No, the question about fossil fuels is enough reason for you to know that organisms have roamed this earth millions of years ago because it takes millions of years for the formation of petroleum (I hope you know how petroleum forms). There are so many evidences today that prove the existence of organisms millions of years ago, even without radiometric dating.

Dating techniques are not entirely foolproof, hence the margin of error estimation, but to fault it entirely without sufficient research data is hypocritical because we believe far more illogical things in our various religions.

paulolee:
240 million?? azin two hundred and forty million years?? that means this existed before the days of adam and abraham na..

You dem mind dem?


They are so accurate but Africans still use over 25 years to play under 17 tournaments?



Watch as faceless nairaland scientists will call you illiterates for not agreeing to be conned.

Grandmeister:

Your question about Moses is a good one(because I am also a Christian). I have some doubts/questions in the things Moses wrote. Because some of them were the revelations he said God told him when he was alone and separated from the Israelites in the wilderness. But one thing I believe about Moses’s account(in genesis) is that this world we live in was designed and created by some people/someone with intelligence. I do NOT believe in the Big Bang theory neither do I believe in evolution.

There's no account of how exactly God created the heaven and earth. We were only made to believe God pronounced things into existence. What if the scientists are not entirely wrong? What if indeed the world was created according to the Big Bang Theory but with God as the engineer. Not all scientists are atheists.

Personally, I do not believe the world was created in 7 calendar days. I believe the creation took possibly billions of our calendar years. The problem we do have as Christians and scientists is trying to read literal meaning into everything in the bible.

Sanchez01:

Kind sage, perhaps you have the answer to how old the earth is?

Some of you make cheap mistakes when it comes to logic.

You are the one diagreeing with them. You're the one to provide reasons to counter them, not me.

If you don't have any reason to counter them, just keep quiet and not rubbish what they are doing.

So, over to you. What is your basis or proof for disagreeing with them. Don't tell me you don't have any.

What is d 2D of this "Ichigo Kurosaki" thing ?


Iberiberism

destinable:


There's no account of how exactly God created the heaven and earth. We were only made to believe God pronounced things into existence. What if the scientists are not entirely wrong? What if indeed the world was created according to the Big Bang Theory but with God as the engineer. Not all scientists are atheists.

Personally, I do not believe the world was created in 7 calendar days. I believe the creation took possibly billions of our calendar years. The problem we do have as Christians and scientists is trying to read literal meaning into everything in the bible.

About the literal days of creation I can’t tell because it was written within the understanding of Moses at that time, so maybe it wasn’t a literal 6 days. But No the Big Bang theory has no order or purpose to it..infact it’s a fallacy(scientifically speaking) to even term it a theory as it doesn’t even meet the requirements needed for it to be a theory.

Let me me launch my python program to decipher if the Chinese are lieing.

[s]

Globad:


Some of you make cheap mistakes when it comes to logic.

You are the one diagreeing with them. You're the one to provide reasons to counter them, not me.

If you don't have any reason to counter them, just keep quiet and not rubbish what they are doing.

So, over to you. What is your basis or proof for disagreeing with them. Don't tell me you don't have any.

[/s]
...and the strawman award of the year goes to you!

You humped on my mention, I threw a simple question at you but rather than answer, you dilly dallied and ended building a body around basis and proof then up asked for my basis or proof, with your peppersoup mindset.

It's simple; do yourself a huge favour, sit down ask yourself some thought-provoking questions...

1. Am I arguing blindly because it is science or because I am an atheist?
2. Does science have an accurate answer to the exact age of the earth, ripping off crude guesses and supposed error margins?
3. What is the known recorded history and how long was it?
4. Is carbon dating truly accurate or largely based on estimation and crude guesses, particularly over 3,000 years old discoveries?
5. Is the said discovery of a 250 million year-old monster logical when the world's age is nothing but wild guesses?

How you successfully throw tantrums and asking someone you've never met to keep quiet when you clearly exhibited normative proposition, strawman attack and appeal to accomplishment at the same time is epic. The funniest part of all is that you have no answer to my question.

Kindly respond if something good hit you. Until then, it is futile putting up a rebuttal that will further reveal the shallow line of thoughts mostly exhibited by most Nigerians.

hermesprogidy:

It's Paleontology.

Thanks for the correction.

Skankamola:
How you take know?

Read Bible, It Is The Only Book That Says The Truth.

Grandmeister:

About the literal days of creation I can’t tell because it was written within the understanding of Moses at that time, so maybe it wasn’t a literal 6 days. But No the Big Bang theory has no order or purpose to it..infact it’s a fallacy(scientifically speaking) to even term it a theory as it doesn’t even meet the requirements needed for it to be a theory.

You're missing my point. There are three theories/hypothesis accounting the formation of the universe, and while they are not all foolproof, scientists continuously strive to unravel the mysteries behind it all. My point is that there's science to the creation of the universe and there's a primary engineer - God.

If scientists ever find an infallible theory supporting the creation of the universe, it wouldn't be disproving the existence of a God but rather it would only show how it all happened.

Pelecius:

When I see posts like this, I know that wannabe atheists will be around to show their ignorance of the Bible.
"The Bible says the earth is flat"? Com'on! get your facts straight. Right from time, the church (teaching from the bible) never thought of a flat earth. Read up respected church history on the subject.

Your last statement should be applied to atheists amd materialists who 'have faith' that nothing is out there except matter and energy eve with so many contrary observations (evidence) and that everything MUST be explained using the laws of nature

First of all I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, I do. But there is a difference in believing in God and religion. Even science and logical deduction will point to the existence of a higher being which we call God. Religion on the other hand is man made for the manipulation and control of the behavior of man.

The problem with religion is that everything is “according to the Bible”, “according to the Quoran” etc. who says the accounts in these books are factual? what if the accounts contained there are wrong? Religious followers base their whole existence on things for which there are no proof, no attempt to verify or ascertain the validity of the contents. The other problem with religion is that it is vastly dependent of the interpretation of man, usually the leaders. If for instance the Bible was the definitive story of man, Why do we have so many different churches with different interpretations? That alone should tell you something.

At least with science, you take a hypothesis and you try to prove it but it is never accepted until PROVEN. Science is based on fact, religion by definition is not. That is why the Bible and quoran are open to manipulation according to the agenda of the protagonists. You will always find a quote in the Bible or Quoran to suit whatever agenda you want because again it is not based on demonstrable fact. Religion is based on people accepting what cannot be proven so by definition it is open to manipulation. Science comes up with theories/hypothesis that can be explored, discredited or proven.

As for flat earth, the Bible referees to “4 corners of the earth” among over 15 other direct quotes that refer to the earth as flat. Google is your friend use it.

Pelecius:

When I see posts like this, I know that wannabe atheists will be around to show their ignorance of the Bible.
"The Bible says the earth is flat"? Com'on! get your facts straight. Right from time, the church (teaching from the bible) never thought of a flat earth. Read up respected church history on the subject.

Your last statement should be applied to atheists amd materialists who 'have faith' that nothing is out there except matter and energy eve with so many contrary observations (evidence) and that everything MUST be explained using the laws of nature

First of all I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, I do. I believe in God because my scientific mind is unable to explain the origins of man, so God is a way of accounting for the origin of man, the story of God and what form God remains a mystery. But there is a difference in believing in God and religion. Even science and logical deduction will point to the existence of a higher phenomenon which we call God. Religion on the other hand is man made for the manipulation and control of the behavior of man because no one can yet explain who or what is God.

The problem with religion is that everything is “according to the Bible”, “according to the Quoran” etc. who says the accounts in these books are factual? what if the accounts contained there are wrong? Religious followers base their whole existence on things for which there are no proof, no attempt to verify or ascertain the validity of the contents. The other problem with religion is that it is vastly dependent of the interpretation of man, usually the leaders. If for instance the Bible was the definitive story of man, Why do we have so many different churches with different interpretations? That alone should tell you something.

At least with science, you take a hypothesis and you try to prove it but it is never accepted until PROVEN. Science is based on fact, religion by definition is not. That is why the Bible and quoran are open to manipulation according to the agenda of the protagonists. You will always find a quote in the Bible or Quoran to suit whatever agenda you want because again it is not based on demonstrable fact. Religion is based on people accepting what cannot be proven so by definition it is open to manipulation. Science comes up with theories/hypothesis that can be explored, discredited or proven.

As for flat earth,

Revelation 7:1

7 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any

Isiah 11:12

He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.

SegFault:

I never saw anything like flat earth anywhere in the bible, but people would obviously have believed in it before Magellan sailed round the Earth. Though there were already proofs like the eclipse, the horizon and all.

Revelation 7:1

7 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any

Isiah 11:12

He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.

Pelecius:


Well, there are works that gives few thousands using same assumptions that all radiometric dating rely upon. Worse is there are rocks whose ages are known as when they were formed was recorded, yet radiometric dating gave millions of years again. This is why it is futile to call those who make mockery of it illiterates. The approximation is greatly exaggerated.
Finally, fossils are assigned dates and nor carbon dated especially if it has completely meneralized

Rocks whose ages are known? Do you know how many years it takes for rocks to form. I did geography back in secondary school so this one I no fit gree, for example take zuma rock, that rock could take thousands of years to form.

realstars:
Read Bible, It Is The Only Book That Says The Truth.

Which verse or passage?

starbuck:
Op, I love your threads but hate the fact that you buy these exaggerated years internet keep dishing out




Modified


Meanwhile, i am enjoying the mentions

They will tell they calculated through carbon dating,half-life or whatever but they are also the ones who told us that all these calculations aren't reliable

destinable:


You're missing my point. There are three theories/hypothesis accounting the formation of the universe, and while they are not all foolproof, scientists continuously strive to unravel the mysteries behind it all. My point is that there's science to the creation of the universe and there's a primary engineer - God.

If scientists ever find an infallible theory supporting the creation of the universe, it wouldn't be disproving the existence of a God but rather it would only show how it all happened.

Ok I get your point. Yes I believe that science governs the (physical)world. Science is man’s way of trying to understand his world so yes I agree with that. Infact if you delve deep into the sciences, you will certainly come to the conclusion of an intelligent designer(the Creator)..if you are an ardent/enthusiastic observer of nature from the behaviors of the smallest ants to the magnificence of the great whales you will come to this same conclusion. If you look at the apex being of ‘known’ creation man you will be left with utter amazement of Man’s body and mind.. you will experience God in all of them..it is not a coincidence that most of the astronauts (frank borman, Jim Lovell,William Anders)who observed the earth from space came back and became religious. James Irwin who walked on the moon in 1971 said “ I felt the power of God as I’ve never felt it before “

Grandmeister:

Ok I get your point. Yes I believe that science governs the (physical)world. Science is man’s way of trying to understand his world so yes I agree with that. Infact if you delve deep into the sciences, you will certainly come to the conclusion of an intelligent designer(the Creator)..if you are an ardent/enthusiastic observer of nature from the behaviors of the smallest ants to the magnificence of the great whales you will come to this same conclusion. If you look at the apex being of ‘known’ creation man you will be left with utter amazement of Man’s body and mind.. you will experience God in all of them..it is not a coincidence that most of the astronauts (frank borman, Jim Lovell,William Anders)who observed the earth from space came back and became religious. James Irwin who walked on the moon in 1971 said “ I felt the power of God as I’ve never felt it before “

What about the first man to enter space Yuri Gagarin who said "I looked and looked but I didn't see God" astronauts going to space and coming back religious don't mean shit brother. And what do you think order is, there is no such thing as order in nature, there are only two forces that drive existence balance and unbalance.