Poll ~ The Flood & Noah's Ark ~ Fact or Fiction?

No it's not. A source is the beginning or origin of something. i.e The sun, a torch or a flame.

Give an example of when science was wrong.

Science books get revised to add new information.

 

I'll answer your question. The myths you posted don't all have an element of truth to them. So what's your point?

 

I think he means some scientists were wrong.

Hmmm...so it's ok to revise science books but not the Bible translation?? That's an interesting view.

 

Like who?

Do what you want with the bible, I don't care, It won't make it any more reliable because it's not based in reality and never will be. Science on the other hand is edited to include new findings, new discoveries and improved theories.

 

Einstein for one...remember how E!=MC2 ?? How a constant turned out to be a variable??

I know you don't care. You have made that very clear. Does not mean you are perfectly right about the Bible.

 

According to science nothing cannot turn into something. And YET "scientists' persist with this view. Chaos does not turn into order. And YET scientists believe that is how we came into being.

Here are some quotes from a "scientific" article:

Ok, more quotes from the "scientific" article someone wanted me to read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051702158.html :

When the ancestors of human beings and the ancestors of chimpanzees parted ways 6.3 million years ago, it was probably a very long goodbye. Some of their descendants may even have gone back for a final tryst.


According to the new theory, chimps and humans shared a common apelike ancestor much more recently than was thought. Furthermore, when the two emerging species split from each other, it was not a clean break. Some members of the two groups seem to have interbred about 1.2 million years after they first diverged -- before going their separate ways for good.

If this theory proves correct, it will mean modern people are descended from something akin to chimp-human hybrids. That is a new idea, and it challenges the prevailing view that hybrids tend to die out.

It also strongly suggests that some of the oldest bones of "proto-humans" -- including the 7 million-year-old Toumai skull unearthed in Chad in 2001 -- may have belonged to a line of non-hybrids that died out, and were not human ancestors at all.

This narrative, by a team of geneticists and biostatisticians from the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, not only casts new light on the origin of humans, but also raises questions about how all new species arise

I'll just stop here but I hope you may get the point. And hopefully you may see the new light or perhaps I should read some other articles that refute or come up with new claims based on new studies that may prove, or may disprove beliefs previously held.

Sorry dude, but there are too many theories for me.

 

People have known light isn't a constant for centuries. You only have to look at refraction to see it.

Einsteins C was used to show the constant speed of light through a vacuum.

 

So...his theory was right or wrong?

 

His theory was right. Your understanding of his use of C is wrong.

 

My understanding? That's odd. Why was this talked about around the globe then so recently? Is everyone else's understanding wrong too?

 

i don't remember anyone talking about it, Certainly not anyone credible.
but if they were talking about it then yes, They are misunderstanding it too.

Look at this article on "the speed of light".
"The speed of light in vacuum is an important physical constant denoted by the letter c for constant"

"C" doesn't apply to all light, Light through different mediums, Slow light or light that has a speed greater than 186,282.397 miles per second. It only applies to light through a vacuum.

 

While I am not sure for 100%, I would tend to believe the Bible that there was a flood. However, I also would tend to believe that a regional flood could be construed as a world flood in some cases. To be sure, I will let you all know when I get to heaven. God and I have a few things to talk about while we enjoy a 6 pack at the local pub.

 

There seems to be quite a few search results about it.

 

There seems to be a few search results about this too.

You misunderstood how Einstein used C in his theory. Accept it and move on.

 

Now there's a great credibility comparison.....LOOOL

 

Well said I do agree that there was likely a very large regional flood at some point in history that was either embellished or genuinely construed as a world wide flood by people who simply had no idea how big (or round) the Earth actually is.

That being said I think it is fair to say that, given the countless facts and statistics that prove Noah's adventure to be impossible, the story of the ark is simply another of the many excellent tales offered in the Bible to get across valid and sensible points.

I just want to add that, while I generally disagree with the Christian doctrine, I do admire the goals of the religion itself. That being said, I think fundamentalists who try to defend events that are really quite clearly untrue simply takes away from the Christian message - and that is really (in my humble opinion) the most redeeming quality the religion has to offer.

To be fair, you did misinterpret the use of C in that equation

 

Sorry, I though credibility was measured by what happens when you type something in to google... That is what you done, right?

 

You know one of the biggest problems with the world today is the lack of faith and knowledge in God. Maybe some of you have an answer for this but if the flood were not real, how were sea animals found at the top of mountain peaks?. If you read the bible thorough it will provide all the answers that are needed in the creation and destruction of the world.

 

You are joking, right?

Sea creatures are found on top of mountains because mountains are created by tectonic movement. What it now the top of a mountain, Used to be the bottom of an ocean.

Why is there always a hand in hand relationship between religious belief and a complete lack of scientific knowledge?

 

I believe the religious had the scientific facts long before the scientist did. The bible has proven science wrong on many occasions.

http://www.carm.org/bible/ms_science.htm

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Studies/Earth_and_Universe.htm