Proof???!!!!!

[gamespotter10]

The point was science cannot prove that before the flood people did not live to be several hundred years old.

But with science slowly catching up to diet and nutrition we should see the ( average ) life span for "man" or mankind reach 120 years.

If you check the oldest people in recent years they are all about 120 give or take a few years.
And their food and soil had the nutrients in it it needed before modern garming and medicine. Thats why they lived that long

Genesis 6 : 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

science can prove however that there was no flood (at least a global one)

 

[Carey]

science can prove however that there was no flood (at least a global one)

Even though I think if worldwide to us and to the known world to them were differnt I dont think it matters.

But science cannot prove one way or the otehr.

Grand Canyon and the Flood of Noah
The Grand Canyon - Amazing Proof of Noah's Flood. Grand Canyon North Rim. When we talk of "The Story of Noah's Flood", were are talking about "reality", ...
www.grandcanyonflood.com/

 

[gamespotter10]

Even though I think if worldwide to us and to the known world to them were differnt I dont think it matters.

But science cannot prove one way or the otehr.

Grand Canyon and the Flood of Noah
The Grand Canyon - Amazing Proof of Noah's Flood. Grand Canyon North Rim. When we talk of "The Story of Noah's Flood", were are talking about "reality", ...
www.grandcanyonflood.com/

whether there was a local flood, or a global flood?

 

[Chalnoth]

Even though I think if worldwide to us and to the known world to them were differnt I dont think it matters.

But science cannot prove one way or the otehr.

GrandCanyon and the Floodof Noah
The Grand Canyon - Amazing Proof of Noah's Flood. Grand Canyon North Rim. When we talk of "The Story of Noah's Flood", were are talking about "reality", ...
www.grandcanyonflood.com/

This is something that has been rehashed over and over again. No, the Grand Canyon cannot be explained by a flood.

In particular, after the canyon had begun to form, there were multiple separate lava flows that entered into the canyon, and after which there continued to be erosion. So, are you proposing that there was a global flood that first laid down the sedimentary layers, then carved out of those layers a very narrow feature called the grand canyon, and then, after doing so, the land dried up, and multiple lava flows occurred (a lava flow occurs, then dries, then another one occurs, and so on), and then there was another flood to carve out the rest of it?

 

[gamespotter10]

carey, another problem with a global flood is that fossils would not be sorted in any order at all.

another problem is that we can see fossillized rain drops. How can features which ONLY appear on the surface appear deep in the geologic column if they were all made in a single catastrophic flood?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Prove that the science we have today can actually prove how long a person lived by examining their skeltal remains 200 or 2000 years ago years ago.

No. Science does not prove anything. It can say with a high degree of certainty how long a person has been dead for, yes, but it does not prove (insofar as proof is 100% certainty).

I say that science is probably incorrect

Why?

and I could find a scientist to agree and give evidence as to why he did.

You are being inconsistent. If science is incorrect, then why on Earth would you want to consult a scientist?

As far as saying even a swatstika symbol would be OK if they do good works well that is debatable but also I guess it would be debatable to say whether or not Nazis did ( ANY ) good work.

The swastika is not a symbol of just Nazism. Fyi.

 

[Carey]

whether there was a local flood, or a global flood?

Scientist cannot even decide on what their evidence proves.

Some say the grand canyon is proof of a Global flood and some say it is proof there was not.

The problem is people give to much credibilty to science.

 

[gamespotter10]

Scientist cannot even decide on what their evidence proves.

Some say the grand canyon is proof of a Global flood and some say it is proof there was not.

The problem is people give to much credibilty to science.

there is absolutely no way the grand canyon could be the result of a flood.

 

[Carey]

No. Science does not prove anything. It can say with a high degree of certainty how long a person has been dead for, yes, but it does not prove (insofar as proof is 100% certainty).

correct


Why?

??


You are being inconsistent. If science is incorrect, then why on Earth would you want to consult a scientist?

To show you science is nothing to put much faith in.


The swastika is not a symbol of just Nazism. Fyi.

I know it was an older pagan symbol inverted for the Nazis.

 

[FishFace]

Yes this logo is a Wizards staff with 2 serpents the symbol of Satan with wings of a fallen angel watching over is false practices and beliefs.

So those homeopathic nurses are Satanistic? I guess even nurses following biblical practices can go bad, right?

I repeat: are you a troll? I can't believe anyone in their right mind would accuse an organisation of being evil because their logo includes a snake.

 

[FishFace]

You can lead a horse to water but.........

Water? I want evidence, I already said, and you haven't given anyone any of that.

I told you - if homeopathy works, how come James Randi didn't even feel dopey after taking 64 homeopathic sleeping pills?

 

[RichardT]

I told you - if homeopathy works, how come James Randi didn't even feel dopey after taking 64 homeopathic sleeping pills?

Homeopathy is trash.

 

[FishFace]

The point was science cannot prove that before the flood people did not live to be several hundred years old.

No problem - science isn't in the business of proving things. But if you give us a pre-flood skeleton, well, we will have pretty damn good evidence of his age.

But with science slowly catching up to diet and nutrition we should see the ( average ) life span for "man" or mankind reach 120 years.

You forgot modern medicine.

If you check the oldest people in recent years they are all about 120 give or take a few years.
And their food and soil had the nutrients in it it needed before modern garming and medicine. Thats why they lived that long

Care to take a guess at how many times their lives were saved by better hygiene practices, vaccinations, antibiotics, surgery and the like?
If they are mothers then they would probably have died in childbirth if it weren't for medicine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

correct

Then why ask for scientific proof if you know that there is none? Why ask for proof when the more pertinant question is to ask for evidence?

??

You said: "I say that science is probably incorrect". I am asking you why you think this. By definition, science is the method by which we pick the most probable explanation of those presented. Thus far, evolution by natural selection is almost certainly true (why 'only' almost? Because I cannot rule out ultra-powerful decieving entities).

To show you science is nothing to put much faith in.

Well of course not. Faith is belief without reason. The scientific consensus is the antithesis of faith: it is belief with reason. One does not 'have faith' in science.

I know it was an older pagan symbol inverted for the Nazis.

And Buddhist, and Greek, if I recall.

 

[Vene]

Homeopathy is trash.

That's the reasonable conclusion. And I think the first time I've agreed with what you've said too (though I could be wrong, selective memory and all).

 

[Parmenio]

Ahem it's viruses

I like virii =D

just like I like the word uteri =D

 

[Herman Hedning]

I know it was an older pagan symbol inverted for the Nazis.

The swastika is a very old symbol that has at various times been in use all over the world. The two variants - left-facing and righ-facing - has been around from the beginning and usually with no difference in connotations. Around 1920 the swastika was widely used in Europe as a good-luck charm. It was taken up by the Nazi party probably because of their infatuation with old Germanic customs and imagery. As an aside you may note that both the Finnish and Latvian air forces used swastikas before the second world war, the Finnish right up to 1945. At the same time, the German air force did not use a swastika, but instead a cross. Confusing?

Have a look at Wikipedia and Wikimedia for some background.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes this logo is a Wizards staff with 2 serpents the symbol of Satan with wings of a fallen angel watching over is false practices and beliefs.

Wrong. As you can see here, the logo has only one serpent. You'll have to adapt your conspiracy theory, methinks.

 

[FishFace]

Homeopathy is trash.

Yes, that would do the trick!

 

[thaumaturgy]

The swastika is a very old symbol that has at various times been in use all over the world. The two variants - left-facing and righ-facing - has been around from the beginning and usually with no difference in connotations. Around 1920 the swastika was widely used in Europe as a good-luck charm. It was taken up by the Nazi party probably because of their infatuation with old Germanic customs and imagery. As an aside you may note that both the Finnish and Latvian air forces used swastikas before the second world war, the Finnish right up to 1945. At the same time, the German air force did not use a swastika, but instead a cross. Confusing?

Have a look at Wikipedia and Wikimedia for some background.

I didn't mean to derail with some discussion of a swastika but what annoyed me most about Carey's comment was that he failed to discuss the actual work the AMA does or what he specifically disagrees with, but that he immediately went for some symbol that, I'm willing to bet, most of the members of AMA don't even really bother to think about.

Carey, as so many other anti-science folks, simply can't carry on the discussion based on facts or anything like that. He has to find some bizarre conspiracy-theory laced discussion of the appearance of the topic. Not the actual topic.