Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So instead of proving me wrong your going to resort to hyperboley and insults.
Do you think your blind faith in science is any better than another persons blind faith in religion?
I can back up everything I say. Can you?
You can back up everything you say huh? Well go ahead do it. But as I believe the biblical story is mythical, use other sources please.
By the way I have no blind faith. Science presents evidence and faith has nothing to do with it. Blind faith is belief without evidence.
We know the center of the earth has both a solid and liquid portion made up in large part by iron. That's why we have a magnetic field around the earth. We can tell from seismic wave studies the parts that are liquid and solid because certain types of waves will propagate through liquid while others will not. It's also very obvious from volcanic activity that deep down in the earth there is a large volume of highly heated molten material. Of course there is a certain amount of water below the surface of the earth which we can tap into when we drill a well but no one with any scientific credentials would suggest there's some sort of huge underground sea down there. That makes no sense geologically. The concept of the earth bursting open and massive amounts of water covering the globe are ridiculous.
I never said there was an underground sea down there, I was simply suggesting that in the past there could have been. Which is one answer to the question of where did all the water come from. Rain is obviously not enough so if we rule out it coming from outer space then under the earth is a good answer.
I never said there was an underground sea down there, I was simply suggesting that in the past there could have been. Which is one answer to the question of where did all the water come from. Rain is obviously not enough so if we rule out it coming from outer space then under the earth is a good answer.
Basing your belief system on "there could have been water" is not scientific. The logical position would be to say "this biblical account is fiction, and makes no scientific sense." There is no evidence to back up Noah's Ark as written in the bible.
The fact that you hold Bronze Age text as absolute truth, in the absence of facts, reveals your unscientific bias.
"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of naturalphenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity."
You would seek out new discoveries to only reinforce your view of an inerrant bible. Empirical data that conflicts with Creationism is tossed aside by you, as evidenced by your posts here.
If you do not accept elementary and accepted scientific facts in the modern age, why should we entertain your "Noah's Ark flood waters inside the Earth" notions? To do so only gives the impression that you may be making legitimate claims about science, when in fact you are not.
Once again, I stand by my claim.
PS: Objective scientists are not only Atheists, but Agnostics, Theists who accept modern science and others. (Creation Scientists are not objective and one would question their titles of "scientist.")
Thank you but as someone who is actually interested in and have taken science courses I have no need for your wikipedia "research". A theory is considered likely by the majority but is not a law because it is acknowledged that further discoveries may change scientists mindsets.
Can you point out some of these "elementary and accepted scientific facts in the modern age" that I am denying?? I would love to know. Tell me, how does cosmology "define the bible as incorrect"? It doesn't, only scientists with personal beliefs insinuate that.
And I stand by my claim.
I'd say that you need to accept the fact that science has room not only for athiests/agnostics but for people of all religions.
P.S. The point I was making is that I am both a theist and a believer of science. I don't believe God chose to create everything in 7 actual days, but rather started it in a singularity taking billions of years to reach its current state, as is supported by cosmology. Just because I believe in a literal Bible doesn't mean you can group me with uneducated people who ignore science.
I never said there was an underground sea down there, I was simply suggesting that in the past there could have been. Which is one answer to the question of where did all the water come from. Rain is obviously not enough so if we rule out it coming from outer space then under the earth is a good answer.
Well if there was a watery core, where was the iron and rock that exist today. Iron and rock and continents do not float on water you know. Don't you think this make your argument rather far fetched?
Basing your belief system on "there could have been water" is not scientific. The logical position would be to say "this biblical account is fiction, and makes no scientific sense." There is no evidence to back up Noah's Ark as written in the bible.
The fact that you hold Bronze Age text as absolute truth, in the absence of facts, reveals your unscientific bias.
By the way, your emphasis on only using the scientific method is inappropriate for a religion/philosophy. Other things must be taken into account.
I'm looking forward to the future because I know that more and more scientists and discoveries will seem to back up what is written in that "bronze age text".
Thank you but as someone who is actually interested in and have taken science courses I have no need for your wikipedia "research". A theory is considered likely by the majority but is not a law because it is acknowledged that further discoveries may change scientists mindsets.
Can you point out some of these "elementary and accepted scientific facts in the modern age" that I am denying?? I would love to know. Tell me, how does cosmology "define the bible as incorrect"? It doesn't, only scientists with personal beliefs insinuate that.
And I stand by my claim.
I'd say that you need to accept the fact that science has room not only for athiests/agnostics but for people of all religions.
P.S. The point I was making is that I am both a theist and a believer of science. I don't believe God chose to create everything in 7 actual days, but rather started it in a singularity taking billions of years to reach its current state, as is supported by cosmology. Just because I believe in a literal Bible doesn't mean you can group me with uneducated people who ignore science.
Oh pardon me, I'll alert the world that you who have taken science courses have trumped the World Experts. Shall I let them know they are out of a job and that you will be taking over?
If you had taken secular science classes, I would not need to post that Wikipedia link for you on what "theory" means in science.
Why is it that the only scientists you agree with are Creation Scientists? Doesn't that seem a little biased to you? A body of Creationists who happen to all be Fundamentalist Christians?
I will post another link where you can find answers to your questions:
talkorigins.org
The onus is on you to disprove modern, accepted science. Your special club of bible literalists are in the minority.
Well if there was a watery core, where was the iron and rock that exist today. Iron and rock and continents do not float on water you know. Don't you think this make your argument rather far fetched?
It wouldn't have been in the core I don't think. rather in large pools probably closer to the crust-not as far-fetched as you might think.
Also, how do you explain the multiple Middle Eastern cultures that have "myths" regarding the flood? Did they all just make them up?
Or how about the remains of human settlements found underwater today? Or evidence that much of the Easter U.S. was underwater in the past? Scientific and archeological evidence tend to support the Biblical account, I am still waiting for your gush of scientific wisdom Lethal.
What happened to lifespans since then? I guess medicine and technology haven't helped much.
P.S. You still worship a God that drowned almost everyone on his planet. Not very nice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I am not alone on this: explain how recently a marine science research team came to the conclusion that there was a flood as supported by the Bible? 
