Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Is science "theory"


Abiyoyo

Recommended Posts

YoYo,May 10 2005, 11:07 AM

 

Assuming that the earth is billions of years old. Correct. This actually would be a good topic for another thread.

 

Are the specific time frames of earlier and modern "paleoethnoarchaeology" actually 100% proven accurate? If so, how? What ending result/theory concluded this 100% proof? Is theory science or is science theory?Do we have all our time frames in the sole basis of a "humans" theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Abiyoyo

    14

  • Mr. Neil

    8

  • SmallStone

    6

  • Asimov

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Assuming that the earth is billions of years old. Correct. This actually would be a good topic for another thread.

 

Are the specific time frames of earlier and modern "paleoethnoarchaeology" actually 100% proven accurate? If so, how? What ending result/theory concluded this 100% proof? Is theory science or is science theory?Do we have all our time frames in the sole basis of a "humans" theory?

 

What? Could you please rephrase your question. I am sorry but I can't follow what you are saying or asking. Maybe if you selected one specific item and we go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that the earth is billions of years old. Correct. This actually would be a good topic for another thread.

 

Are the specific time frames of earlier and modern "paleoethnoarchaeology" actually 100% proven accurate? If so, how? What ending result/theory concluded this 100% proof? Is theory science or is science theory?Do we have all our time frames in the sole basis of a "humans" theory?

 

That's the funny thing about definitive proof, as far as archaelogical evidence, it's not 100% accurate. But not being a paleoanthropologist I'm sure I wouldn't be lying if I said it was 95% to 99% accurate. What makes it funny its hard to be 100% about anything. But what's even more funny, is that there is 95 to 99% more definitive proof as to the existence of creatures that lived millions of years ago than any of the biblical creatures that supposedly existed 2000 odd years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the funny thing about definitive proof, as far as archaelogical evidence, it's not 100% accurate. But not being a paleoanthropologist I'm sure I wouldn't be lying if I said it was 95% to 99% accurate. What makes it funny its hard to be 100% about anything. But what's even more funny, is that there is 95 to 99% more definitive proof as to the existence of creatures that lived millions of years ago than any of the biblical creatures that supposedly existed 2000 odd years ago.

 

Is that the "theoritcal" percentage?

 

Actually, there are photos of Noahs Ark by independant researchers as well as the CIA.

 

Are the "theoritical" percentages true?

 

What is the underlining "proof"of these "percentages", or Is it theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we have all our time frames in the sole basis of a "humans" theory?

I assume you are babbling about geologic time frames. Geologic time frames are artificial constructs derived by geologists from the geologic record. Since geologists are in fact human, yes, the time frames are of human origin.

 

Ask a stupid question ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about posting in the incorrect forum.

Apologies.

 

I would like to add to the topic.

 

What would be the cause/effect in the instance that Noahs Ark is confirmed, preserved, documented, unveiled, measured, and came to be Historically accurate to the description in the Bible?

 

How would this effect the aging process of "fossils".

 

How would this have validitate the OT. Or not?

 

How would the forming of the "assumed evidence" affect our veiw of the age of earth today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the  "theoritcal" percentage?

 

What is the underlining "proof"of these "percentages", or  Is it theory?

 

The age of the Earth is not determined by paleoarchaeology, but with physics. In fact the latest modern estimates of the age of the Earth are based upon multiple converging lines of data that are scientifically known. The fact that these various methodologies for measuring all agree to within a very small timeframe agrue conclusively that the Earth and universe is billions of years old. Now, the second point is are these "theoretical"? Yes, they are all based upon scientific theory, however I get the distinct impression that you do not understand what the definition of a theory in science is as opposed to the general use of the word theory. In science, a theory is an explanation of observed facts which has enough evidence behind it to be accepted as a true explanatory statement.

 

Actually, there are photos of Noahs Ark by independant researchers as well as the CIA.

 

Actually Noah's Ark has not been found and no pictures exist, regardless of urban legends to the contrary. Even a cursory glance at the more legitimate Christian literature and sites would demolish this absurd claim. Here is a link from Answers in Genesis, a Christian organization that exposes the Ararat Ark Find claim, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp.

 

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the pictures exist, then please, by all means, bring them forth.

 

Oh, wait, they don't.

 

And you would do well to find out what a theory is in science. In other words, read a real book, rahter than that cheap, tawdry fiction you fill your head with now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Actually, there are photos of Noahs Ark by independant researchers as well as the CIA.

...

Really? Would you mind giving a link or some documentation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Noah's Ark has not been found and no pictures exist, regardless of urban legends to the contrary. Even a cursory glance at the more legitimate Christian literature and sites would demolish this absurd claim. Here is a link from Answers in Genesis, a Christian organization that exposes the Ararat Ark Find claim, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp.

Bruce

 

Im not impling that it is "correct". Im impling that these "scientists" have evidence of this; as do most of the "scientists" have evidence of other topics that discredit the "creation" standpoint. The only fact really that is known is that "humans" are flawable. Example, "scientists" found a "fossil" of some type of fish and dated up to some millions of years old(extinction). The same "unknown creature" has been caught and seen by fisherman in this same time frame. In that, my main question, Is the measurements and time frames of these ancient "earth" correct. Also, the Ark is just as feasable of a claim than any other "tidbit" of scientific evidence of "ancient" earth. Heres the reason about the Arks attention. Upon reading this, it would be easy to say this is directly the result from creationists, The Church, etc.On the contrary though, it is just as "hypothetical" as a new discovery and research of an unknown, by secular scientists. The hypothetical is the idea, and the theoritical is the process. Back to my question, What if the " theoritical" evaluation of this " structure" concludes that it is the Ark of the Bible. They seem to be on that path.

So in reality, if it wasn’t for the fact that this particular boat-shape is the approximate length of the biblical Noah’s Ark, then little attention would have been paid to it, even though it lies within the region the Bible describes as the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). (*It is much wider than the Ark, but proponents of the site say that this is because the outside walls have been ‘splayed out’ by the weight of mud.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFC. "Could" you "ease" up on "the" quotes"?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the pictures exist, then please, by all means, bring them forth.

 

Oh, wait, they don't. 

 

And you would do well to find out what a theory is in science.  In other words, read a real book, rahter than that cheap, tawdry fiction you fill your head with now.

 

http://www.atsnn.com/story/46042.html

 

 

The anomaly is about 600 ft long which is close to the description of the Ark in Genesis. Although the original picture was taken in 1949, it was not released until 1995 when it was requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The U.S. Defense Department and CIA still refuse to declassify their KH-9 and KH-11 satellite imagery of the anomaly taken in the 1970s.

 

Hmm, maybe they have some insight on JFK as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFC. "Could" you "ease" up on "the" quotes"?"

 

It was implied that these "claims were false". I just wanted to point out that some "claims" and "proof" are more than none discredited by the party that disagrees with the subject, ironic Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the other half of your question YoYo. Let's explore it too.

 

Imagine that the mountains in question are thoroughly mapped and explored. Imagine that no wooden man-made structure is found anywhere in any of these potential places.

 

What would the effect on christians and/or christian practice be? Why? Would the bible be perceived differently by those believe it to be the word of god? If so, how? Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you are babbling about geologic time frames. Geologic time frames are artificial constructs derived by geologists from the geologic record. Since geologists are in fact human, yes, the time frames are of human origin.

 

Ask a stupid question ...

 

LOL :grin:

 

Remeber, never assume, only have proof.

Itry not to "babble". :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was implied that these "claims were false". I just wanted to point out that some "claims" and "proof" are more than none discredited by the party that disagrees with the subject, ironic Huh?

Huh? Could I get that in English?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Itry not to "babble".  :lmao:

Try harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are photos of Noahs Ark by independant researchers as well as the CIA.

Which one?

 

 

You do know found several "Noah's Arks" in the last few decades...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the other half of your question YoYo. Let's explore it too.

 

Imagine that the mountains in question are thoroughly mapped and explored. Imagine that no wooden man-made structure is found anywhere in any of these potential places.

 

What would the effect on christians and/or christian practice be? Why? Would the bible be perceived differently by those believe it to be the word of god? If so, how? Why?

 

EXCELLANT QUESTION!

 

If there were no "Ark" found on the mountain at all then this, to some, would be devastating. I have a feeling this is a "trick" question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read your article and looked at the picture, I do not see conclusive proof of a ship on the mountain. Where is the information regarding the expedition that was planned for the summer of 2004? This article is over a year old. The picture show nothing specific, just an anomaly.

 

Also, Above Top Secret is not the most reputable source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if this were the final resting place of the ark would not the remains of non indigenous species be found in the area? How would they get off the mountain? Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does a boat-like object, or even what appears to be a boat, even remotely prove that there was a global flood?

 

It doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only fact really that is known is that "humans" are flawable. Example, "scientists" found a "fossil" of some type of fish and dated up to some millions of years old(extinction). The same "unknown creature" has been caught and seen by fisherman in this same time frame.

Now... where have I heard that little bit of mis-information before?

 

Oh yes...

 

Read this page, paying attention to the where it says "A new species of coelacanth" and "the Indonesian coelacanth is a new species." http://www.elsevier.fr/html/news/cras3mars99/pouyaud.html

 

 

Now, try to understand this...

 

THE FISH THEY CAUGHT IS NOT THE SAME SPECIES AS THE FOSSIL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.