afroxyz:
My own take is that I wouldn't say that there is no God. But telling me that the Abraham in God is the true one is a big lie. If we are approaching 9billion people on earth, and God created all of us in his image, and science says no human being is the same, does it not imply God exists in about 9 billion ways?

But then again, science has told us that the earth is in a constant state of evolution. Energy is changing and being recreated into forms. Particles mix to create new forms. There is a logic to that.

I don't think "likeness" here is to be taken literally, as in, facial structure, bone structure and all that.

Rather though, i think it's more of you being like a higher animal for instance, being intelligent, having the spirit of God within you, your ability to build complex things and so on.

Dantee005:
We'll Find when we get dere wont we...?

No we won't, my advice life is too short live it well and right,do good unto others,
And stop hoping for a better life in a non existing heaven where all you do all day is praise,
How will you feel when you family that failed to make it,burn for

A child of 6 years old go to hell for stealing a piece of meat

we are all born in sin,so where do dead babies to to

How old are we going to be in this after life

How do a man survive in a fish for days

The sun stood still,no natural disaster

So tell me if a strange unknown man turns water to win will you drink it

Most Christian are Christian cos they were born into it as well as Muslim

And they are over 4000 religion

And some people still believe the earth is 2000 years old

jonbellion:
I gave summary Na
Nawa for you oo unless you want to say ray comfort didn't say everything I told you just now. That'll just be dishonest. In his earlier banana video God should have ministered to him that the banana is an artificially selected fruit. Yet he allowed him to publicly disgrace himself and display his ignorance ave stupidity for all the world to see
Wow

what's the dictionary mean I of artificial sir...then tell me how banana is artificial sir..thank you

jonbellion:
are you insane??
Didn't I tell you I always look at ray comfort documentaries don't be like this dude. I knew about that banana video since and I saw the athiest delusion b4 it was posted on NL it has been out since August I also showed you another ray comfort documentary to watch "evolution vs God" to show you how he's bias and you're saying bullshit. Which distraction. What seun said was the truth. The mumu didn't know the banana was an artificially selected fruit and he doesn't have a university education so he knows nothing about science. Any creationist that is in the biological sciences and still takes the bible literally really needs to look at the kind of education the person got. Some creationist biological scientists after looking at the amount of evidence concerning evolution start to believe in both God and evolution. I have no problem with engineers or scientists that are not biologists cuz it's not their field. Ray comfort is not a scientist he is not a biologist and yet he keeps saying sh*t. Just because he said DNA couldn't make itself doesn't mean the Abrahamic Gid exists. The Abrahamic God is no scientist. He created the earth in 3 days and the stars in 1 day cuz after all stars are just little dots in the sky. *facepalm*

this monkey ehhnnn...na you count the years?..2.5million..this guy is just a waste of oxygen and space... walahi

GRIMMJOE:
No we won't, my advice life is too short live it well and right,do good unto others,
And stop hoping for a better life in a non existing heaven where all you do all day is praise,
How will you feel when you family that failed to make it,burn for

A child of 6 years old go to hell for stealing a piece of meat

we are all burn in sin,so where do dead babies to to

How old are we going to be in this after life

Praise there would be ecstatic to our beings, unlike how in this form, you sometimes don't feel like praising, or doing some things.

Your prayer should be, that all your family members make it.

Always remember that, even though God is a God of justice, he is also a God of mercy. I will not pretend to know how that mercy would be served, but always hold on to that without taking it for granted.

All ATHEISTS beliefs are based on science. They so believe in science like it will never fail or there could never be a mistake in science beliefs.



Pasted below are just ten out of several Scientific beliefs that have been proven wrong by scientists themselves. And I wonder where our NL Atheists would hide their faces when eventually what they are die-hard BELIEVERS of today are proven wrong tomorrow.

You believe the Abrahamic God does not exist and thats why you rain insults on Him and His Son who is Him. SMH

The Abhamic God don't fight and strike like humans would expect Him to do to proove His existence No. Because He knows you will know one day that He surely exists either here on earth before you die or after you have died. So go on and have your fun, rain more abuses on Him and curse Him.
One day you will if He exits or Not.


Read

Below are Failed Scientific Beliefs. I am not a Science student neither was I. I am an Artist a Painter and Sculptor. So what I paste below was Copied from a research on the Internet.




Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) 1

POSTED BY EVAN ANDREWS ON
MARCH 12, 2010 IN EDUCATION,
SCIENCE | 85,459 VIEWS | 176 RESPONSES

One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated.

The following are ten of the most

groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.

10. The Discovery of Vulcan

Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists 1 believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek .

9. Spontaneous Generation

Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.

How it was Proven Wrong:

It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.

8. The Expanding Earth

Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists 2 subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.

7. Phlogiston Theory

First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and whic 1 h makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.

6. The Martian Canals

The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.

5. Luminiferous Aether

The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe. Philosophers as far back as the Greeks had believed that light required a delivery system, a means through which it became visible, and this idea managed to persist all the way through to the nineteenth century. If correct, the theory would have redefined our entire understanding of physics. Most notably, if the aether were a physical substance that could exist even in a vacuum, then even deep space could be more easily measured and quantified. Experiments often contradicted the theory of the aether, but by the 1700s it had become so widespread that its existence was assumed to be a given. Later, when the idea was abandoned, physicist Albert Michelson referred to luminiferous aether as “one of the grandest generalizations in modern science.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

In traditional scientific fashion, the notion of a luminiferous aether was only gradually phased out as more sophisticated theories came into play. Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein’s special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents. The theory still exists in various forms, though, and many have argued that modern scientists simply use terms like “fields” and “fabric” in place of the more taboo term “aether.”

4. The Blank Slate Theory

One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory, which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke, insisted that all mental content was the result of experience and education. For these thinkers, nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.

How it was Proven Wrong:

While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition, it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with certain innate instincts, also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile, studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birth.

3. Phrenology

Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its day phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. According to phrenologists, the larger each one of these parts of a person’s brain was, the more likely they were to behave in a certain way. With this in mind, practitioners would often study the size and shape of subjects’ heads in order to determine what kind of personality they might have. Detailed maps of the supposed 27 different areas of the brain were created, and a person who had a particularly large bump on their skull in the area for, say, the sense of colors, would be assumed to have a proclivity for painting.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Even during the heyday of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery. But their protests were largely ignored until the 1900s, when modern scientific advances helped to show that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain, at least in not as precise a way as the proponents of phrenology often claimed. Phrenology still exists today as a fringe science, but its use in the 20th century has become somewhat infamous: it has often been employed as a tool to promote racism, most famously by the Nazis, as well by Belgian colonialists in Rwanda.

2. Einstein’s Static Universe

Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The theory of a static universe was problematic from the start. First of all, a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the “cosmological constant.” Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift—the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us—and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model.

1. Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion
While the conditions required to create nuclear energy usually require extreme temperatures—think of the processes that power the sun—the theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature. It’s a deceivingly simple concept, but the implications are spectacular: if a nuclear reaction could occur at room temperature, then an abundance of energy could be created without the dangerous waste that results from nuclear power plants. This groundbreaking theory briefly seemed to have become a reality in 1989, when the electro-chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published experimental results suggesting that they had achieved cold fusion—and the precious “excess energy” it was hoped to produce—in an experiment where an electric current was run through seawater and a metal called Palladium. The response to Pons and Fleischmann’s claims by the media and the scientific community was overwhelming. The experiments were hailed as a turning point in science, and it was briefly believed that with cold fusion energy would be cheap, clean, and abundant.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The fervor over cold fusion died down as soon as other scientists tried to replicate the experiment. Most failed to get any kind of similar results, and after their paper was closely studied, Fleischmann and Pons were accused not only of sloppy, unethical science, but were even said to have stretched the truth of their results. For years after, the idea of cold fusion became synonymous with fringe science. Still, despite the stigma attached to it, many have argued that there was never anything necessarily wrong about cold fusion as a theory. In recent years, scientists have once again started to experiment with new ways of achieving a so-called “tabletop nuclear reaction,” with some even claiming to have achieved surprising success.

Some being are just too funny sha.. I personally think the dumbest thing to do on planet earth......



is to argue with an atheist...
.. .

. it's just like arguing with a born blind man about colors

jonbellion:
are you insane??
Didn't I tell you I always look at ray comfort documentaries don't be like this dude. I knew about that banana video since and I saw the athiest delusion b4 it was posted on NL it has been out since August I also showed you another ray comfort documentary to watch "evolution vs God" to show you how he's bias and you're saying bullshit. Which distraction. What seun said was the truth. The mumu didn't know the banana was an artificially selected fruit and he doesn't have a university education so he knows nothing about science. Any creationist that is in the biological sciences and still takes the bible literally really needs to look at the kind of education the person got. Some creationist biological scientists after looking at the amount of evidence concerning evolution start to believe in both God and evolution. I have no problem with engineers or scientists that are not biologists cuz it's not their field. Ray comfort is not a scientist he is not a biologist and yet he keeps saying sh*t. Just because he said DNA couldn't make itself doesn't mean the Abrahamic Gid exists. The Abrahamic God is no scientist. He created the earth in 3 days and the stars in 1 day cuz after all stars are just little dots in the sky. *facepalm*

Guess no matter how different our views are ,we have one thing in common ; we are both Jon Bellion fans. I do not believe in evolution basically because it makes minimal sense and there aren't factual proof of its happening, just theories by ' prominent ' scientists. Most scientists go along with evolution because it is like a gate pass to acceptance in the scientific community. Evolution hasn't and cannot account for the origin of life ( correct me if I'm wrong) . Because the first life form, the first DNA molecule had to have come with a pre-programmed information that would help it replicate and scientists agree that information must come from an intelligent source ( whom we call God) . if it was that a few clicks just happened and life was formed from inorganic components, I might understand evolutionary point of view . But no, there were a million and one variations that could have happened , but everything just followed a precise pattern all leading up to all forms of life we have now . I don't claim to be an authority on the subject but do check out this audio ' Stephen Meyer Vs Peter Atkins( renowned chemist, atheist and author of most of your university text book) arguing on the movie ' Expelled ' . This is the you tube link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZlPZvIOC0 . Read, listen and be sure of what exactly you defend.

.

Biamond:
atheists in the house.... is there anything like "sin" ? educate me abeg

There is nothing like sin but moral standard and that could be right or wrong based on acceptance
Some culture in accent time do carry out cannibalism (eat other humans or foreigners) they felt it was right and not a sin

killing of twins was also normal

Slave trade was also healthy

old testament of bible saw killing an Enemy and his wife and children is a holy victory

An Indian man and family was killed by angry mob for eating a cow (of recent)

it okay to kill your enemy,72 virgins

Believe me in 100--150 years (too long) homosexuality will seem very normal around the world

Sin an illusion of moral standard

Religious pple shud knw by nw dat wat dy call holy book(bible) is just lik evry other literature books lik poetry or play. In ur book it was written dat evrytin ur god made is good(no bad one), which my 1st question comes frm. Why did god av bad fruit in his garden wch he knws dat if d man he created eat frm it, it wil mak him sin against god ? Your book said god is presence evrywhere. Where was he wen d serpent was deceiving eve nd he watched it happen nd besides wat is serpent doin in d garden of god(garden of eden). I guess it's a planned work between god and serpent. According to ur book god only created adam nd eve. How did other people exist in d earth ? if adam nd eve had only cain and abel, how does pple dat cain meet in other city after he killed abel comes into existence ? My point is dat d person that wrote your story book for u is confused cos most of d things he said contradict each other... Lastly for tonight, who was there wen all those tin happend and av 2 use it to write a book for u ?

GRIMMJOE:
There is nothing like sin but moral standard and that could be right or wrong based on acceptance
Some culture in accent time do carry out cannibalism (eat other humans or foreigners) they felt it was right and not a sin

killing of twins was also normal

Slave trade was also healthy

old testament of bible saw killing an Enemy and his wife and children is a holy victory

An Indian man and family was killed by angry mob for eating a cow (of recent)

it okay to kill your enemy,72 virgins

Believe me in 100--150 years (too long) homosexuality will seem very normal around the world

Sin an illusion of moral standard

Thank you

Biamond:
atheists in the house.... is there anything like "sin" ? educate me abeg

sin is a religious perspective...
What exists are ----Moral,immoral,laws and offences.
Sin is inexistent.

musicwriter:
Guys. Here's a more worthy video of an atheist professor of Biology who later came back to his senses and realized evolution doesn't make sense. It took a simple question from one of his female student to reset his brain. The man is a top scientist, and his refutation of atheism was so huge in the US that it was turned to a movie.

The movie clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBLltwJDoX4

Here is the actual testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dMHZior9TE

For more information, youtube the testimony of Dr. Richard Lumsden.

More videos...............

Mr. Kent Hovind is a science teacher who is anti-evolution.

See 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - by Kent Hovind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM

Atheism is the absence of common sense.

lol...and your common sense told you a snake can talk?
Typical cra'y.

I wept for myself more than I did for atheist. I praise God for letting me watch this video!
Am so emotional now.

GRIMMJOE:
No we won't, my advice life is too short live it well and right,do good unto others,
And stop hoping for a better life in a non existing heaven where all you do all day is praise,
How will you feel when you family that failed to make it,burn for

A child of 6 years old go to hell for stealing a piece of meat

we are all born in sin,so where do dead babies to to

How old are we going to be in this after life

How do a man survive in a fish for days

The sun stood still,no natural disaster

So tell me if a strange unknown man turns water to win will you drink it

Most Christian are Christian cos they were born into it as well as Muslim

And they are over 4000 religion

And some people still believe the earth is 2000 years old

christianity is a perversion of human intellect and psyche.

ever811:
this monkey ehhnnn...na you count the years?..2.5million..this guy is just a waste of oxygen and space... walahi

do you have a foundation in scientific knowledge?
Yes or no?

ever811:
what's the dictionary mean I of artificial sir...then tell me how banana is artificial sir..thank you

the present specie/modification of a banana is artiificially created/selected by man.

davtosh:
All ATHEISTS beliefs are based on science. They so believe in science like it will never fail or there could never be a mistake in science beliefs.



Pasted below are just ten out of several Scientific beliefs that have been proven wrong by scientists themselves. And I wonder where our NL Atheists would hide their faces when eventually what they are die-hard BELIEVERS of today are proven wrong tomorrow.

You believe the Abrahamic God does not exist and thats why you rain insults on Him and His Son who is Him. SMH

The Abhamic God don't fight and strike like humans would expect Him to do to proove His existence No. Because He knows you will know one day that He surely exists either here on earth before you die or after you have died. So go on and have your fun, rain more abuses on Him and curse Him.
One day you will if He exits or Not.


Read

Below are Failed Scientific Beliefs. I am not a Science student neither was I. I am an Artist a Painter and Sculptor. So what I paste below was Copied from a research on the Internet.




Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) 1

POSTED BY EVAN ANDREWS ON
MARCH 12, 2010 IN EDUCATION,
SCIENCE | 85,459 VIEWS | 176 RESPONSES

One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated.

The following are ten of the most

groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.

10. The Discovery of Vulcan

Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists 1 believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek .

9. Spontaneous Generation

Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.

How it was Proven Wrong:

It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.

8. The Expanding Earth

Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists 2 subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.

7. Phlogiston Theory

First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and whic 1 h makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.

6. The Martian Canals

The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.

5. Luminiferous Aether

The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe. Philosophers as far back as the Greeks had believed that light required a delivery system, a means through which it became visible, and this idea managed to persist all the way through to the nineteenth century. If correct, the theory would have redefined our entire understanding of physics. Most notably, if the aether were a physical substance that could exist even in a vacuum, then even deep space could be more easily measured and quantified. Experiments often contradicted the theory of the aether, but by the 1700s it had become so widespread that its existence was assumed to be a given. Later, when the idea was abandoned, physicist Albert Michelson referred to luminiferous aether as “one of the grandest generalizations in modern science.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

In traditional scientific fashion, the notion of a luminiferous aether was only gradually phased out as more sophisticated theories came into play. Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein’s special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents. The theory still exists in various forms, though, and many have argued that modern scientists simply use terms like “fields” and “fabric” in place of the more taboo term “aether.”

4. The Blank Slate Theory

One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory, which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke, insisted that all mental content was the result of experience and education. For these thinkers, nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.

How it was Proven Wrong:

While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition, it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with certain innate instincts, also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile, studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birth.

3. Phrenology

Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its day phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. According to phrenologists, the larger each one of these parts of a person’s brain was, the more likely they were to behave in a certain way. With this in mind, practitioners would often study the size and shape of subjects’ heads in order to determine what kind of personality they might have. Detailed maps of the supposed 27 different areas of the brain were created, and a person who had a particularly large bump on their skull in the area for, say, the sense of colors, would be assumed to have a proclivity for painting.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Even during the heyday of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery. But their protests were largely ignored until the 1900s, when modern scientific advances helped to show that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain, at least in not as precise a way as the proponents of phrenology often claimed. Phrenology still exists today as a fringe science, but its use in the 20th century has become somewhat infamous: it has often been employed as a tool to promote racism, most famously by the Nazis, as well by Belgian colonialists in Rwanda.

2. Einstein’s Static Universe

Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The theory of a static universe was problematic from the start. First of all, a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the “cosmological constant.” Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift—the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us—and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model.

1. Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion
While the conditions required to create nuclear energy usually require extreme temperatures—think of the processes that power the sun—the theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature. It’s a deceivingly simple concept, but the implications are spectacular: if a nuclear reaction could occur at room temperature, then an abundance of energy could be created without the dangerous waste that results from nuclear power plants. This groundbreaking theory briefly seemed to have become a reality in 1989, when the electro-chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published experimental results suggesting that they had achieved cold fusion—and the precious “excess energy” it was hoped to produce—in an experiment where an electric current was run through seawater and a metal called Palladium. The response to Pons and Fleischmann’s claims by the media and the scientific community was overwhelming. The experiments were hailed as a turning point in science, and it was briefly believed that with cold fusion energy would be cheap, clean, and abundant.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The fervor over cold fusion died down as soon as other scientists tried to replicate the experiment. Most failed to get any kind of similar results, and after their paper was closely studied, Fleischmann and Pons were accused not only of sloppy, unethical science, but were even said to have stretched the truth of their results. For years after, the idea of cold fusion became synonymous with fringe science. Still, despite the stigma attached to it, many have argued that there was never anything necessarily wrong about cold fusion as a theory. In recent years, scientists have once again started to experiment with new ways of achieving a so-called “tabletop nuclear reaction,” with some even claiming to have achieved surprising success.

good...so science doesnt claim to be infallible...and accepts correction..
Do you and your book of literature?

wackpoet:

Guess no matter how different our views are ,we have one thing in common ; we are both Jon Bellion fans. I do not believe in evolution basically because it makes minimal sense and there aren't factual proof of its happening, just theories by ' prominent ' scientists. Most scientists go along with evolution because it is like a gate pass to acceptance in the scientific community. Evolution hasn't and cannot account for the origin of life ( correct me if I'm wrong) . Because the first life form, the first DNA molecule had to have come with a pre-programmed information that would help it replicate and scientists agree that information must come from an intelligent source ( whom we call God) . if it was that a few clicks just happened and life was formed from inorganic components, I might understand evolutionary point of view . But no, there were a million and one variations that could have happened , but everything just followed a precise pattern all leading up to all forms of life we have now . I don't claim to be an authority on the subject but do check out this audio ' Stephen Meyer Vs Peter Atkins( renowned chemist, atheist and author of most of your university text book) arguing on the movie ' Expelled ' . This is the you tube link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZlPZvIOC0 . Read, listen and be sure of what exactly you defend.

all scientists agree that info' must come from an intelligent source??
Are you a pseudostatitician?

MrMontella:
do you have a foundation in scientific knowledge? Yes or no?

you mean the guess work of science?..

MrMontella:

the present specie/modification of a banana is artiificially created/selected by man.

dictionary meaning of the word .. ARTIFICIAL.. then you can continue with your grammar on banana.. thank you

ever811:
you mean the guess work of science?..

i see im conversing with a person without scientific foundations...shalom!

ever811:
dictionary meaning of the word .. ARTIFICIAL.. then you can continue with your grammar on banana.. thank you

artificial - /ɑːtɪˈfɪʃ(ə)l/ adjective 1. made or produced by human beings rather than
occurring naturally, especially as a copy of
something natural.
2. (of a person or their behaviour) insincere or
affected.
3. (of a bid) conventional as opposed to natural.
Artificially modified.

Only a fool says there's no God. If you cannot explain to me how I was created,how oxygen was created and specifically designed to be the only air that can keep man alive,how my flesh was made and from what material it was designed and manufactured from,and how/why it was made to that particular texture,etc,you'd have to keep quiet and accept there's a God somewhere,who influenced everything to be the way it is. Life is too complex to have evolved on its own without someone directing the evolution. People say humans evolved from apes;how come the other apes remainging today couldn't evolve with their counterparts? Where they given a time frame? Who directed the timing?

I'd rather live my life believing that there's a God and fiind out on the last day that there's no God,than believing that theree's no God,but finding/meeting God on the last day. That would be foolishness on my part.

To question the existence of a creator is asinine.
Even this platform won't exist if it wasn't "created" by Seun.

The complexity of the universe and human anatomy is self evident that there has to be s Master Mind behind all these.

Questioning religion and religious beliefs and doctrines is the appropriate argument.

I can't believe I wasted my time following this, I actually thought there was worthwhile information here.

Atheism is foolishness

MrMontella:

artificial - /ɑːtɪˈfɪʃ(ə)l/ adjective 1. made or produced by human beings rather than
occurring naturally, especially as a copy of
something natural.
2. (of a person or their behaviour) insincere or
affected.
3. (of a bid) conventional as opposed to natural.
Artificially modified.

sir,so going by the first definition.. its shows that banana either the bush or the one we consume are products of nature not man made so go back and read that your comment again...where you said the banana we consume is artificial.. thank you

Me, I have only one question : why do people experience the same evil presence together during sleep paralysis if it's just hallucinations?

chronique:
Only a fool says there's no God. If you cannot explain to me how I was created,how oxygen was created and specifically designed to be the only air that can keep man alive,how my flesh was made and from what material it was designed and manufactured from,and how/why it was made to that particular texture,etc,you'd have to keep quiet and accept there's a God somewhere,who influenced everything to be the way it is. Life is too complex to have evolved on its own without someone directing the evolution. People say humans evolved from apes;how come the other apes remainging today couldn't evolve with their counterparts? Where they given a time frame? Who directed the timing?

I'd rather live my life believing that there's a God and fiind out on the last day that there's no God,than believing that theree's no God,but finding/meeting God on the last day. That would be foolishness on my part .

But Oxygen is not that complex, instead God is Omini ,very complex how was he created

@ Bolded just admit it, 99% of Christian (other religions) are scared of going to hell

All you atheists who are "tiny, frail and peccable mortals", just like every human being, are so blind to realise that THE CREATOR HIMSELF gave mankind science; but instead of showing appreciation for the gift of science that HE gave for our sole benefit; you choose to always display extreme arrogance towards THE OWNER of science HIMSELF and the entire Universe; and that is the major reason why the world has gone terribly bad today with so much evil because of the "nauseating level of conceit" exhibited by these so called atheists!

Please, kindly do NOT quote my post!

Thank you!