Joelcool7 said: I assume this was a joke, as it not only has scientific facts wrong but Biblical facts wrong. It specifically says the Bible says Earth is 7,000 years old where in reality no where does the Bible state how old the earth in. Biblical scholars have deducted that based on time lines within the Bible that the human race may be only 7,000 or 6,000 years old. Which honestly do to the fact the Bible doesn't have a year by year time line isn't 100% accurate either. Nobody knows how long the earth has been existence. I find it funny when people say the Earth is 6,000-7,000 years old based on the Bible. Having gone to Christian school till grade 9, even I am very aware that this isn't based on anything more then theory. Even the ages of the humans back in the Bible have to be taken into account. The Bible timeline covers a very large amount of time, in fact the original Hebrew predates the Roman calendar. The concept of years and such and months etc...etc.. changed multiple times during the Bible's coverage. Fact is all we can do is make guesses based on our own interpretations of scripture. The Bible doesn't specifically say anything as to how long the earth has been around. My guess is the Earth could be billions of years old, in fact Evolution probably occurred (In forms I still don't think there is enough evidence to support Macro evolution). Its foolish to judge the Bible or support the Bible with the whole 6,000-7,000 year crap. Again these religious and anti-religious threads are just stupid. As for the comment as to religious groups being fanboys and that is why people are being driven to atheism. That's not true either since Atheists act just as juvenile on a regular basis. In fact the most logical group I find is agnostics, they actually realize that they can't prove anything and rather then attacking or defending beliefs they simply sit back and watch everyone argue. |
My sentiments the same (bolded part). I view both religion and science with equal suspicion.
Don't get me wrong science that can be observed, tested and proven has answered many questions, enhanced our lives through great inventions.
It's the science that can't be observed (at even relatively closely observed) that I am dubious about.
Before Voyager scientists thought many things, after Voyager Scientists realised they were wrong on almost all of them.
The Mars Rover, Hubble etc, provides close or closer observations and are changing the way scientists had previously thought. It is constantly changing so a lot of what was believed before is no longer valid.
We cannot observe earth's distant past first hand but can build up a picture of what it was like based on what is now around us, similar to the police at a crime scene but but with no witnesses. This means that many pictures can be built and can be all wrong or one possibly right and again these are always changing.
Again I ask which theory is true for the origins of modern man? Science hasn't clearly answered that question to the satisfaction of all and again it is constantly being revised.
I want science to keep looking for these answers but how can one believe any "theory" knowing that it is likely to change in the future and possibly in a totally different direction. That is what a lot of people do not understand about science. It is trying to find the answers but a lot of these answers are not fact.