Can anyone show me evidence that disproves the hollow earth theory?
86722
I don't know about disproving it, but this website has a link to another person's website that may help you, if you look hard and long enough!\nhttp://www.coasttocoastam.com
109888
>>>>If you wanted to prove the moon was hollow,\n>>>> how would you do it?\n\nYou could do it in two obvious ways. \n\nThe first would be to go up there with some seismic equipment and measure the shockwaves of asteroid impacts  tell you the density of the core.\n\nThe second and simpler way would be to assume uniform density  and see whether the predicted gravitational pull was equal to the observed effects. If the moon were hollow the tidal effects on Erath and the orbital velocity of spacecraft would be much smaller thanpredicted. \n\n>>>>By the way, a NASA scientist has proven it to me\n\nProven what? That the moon is hollow? If so then he is either making fun of you or he is lying to you about being a NASA scientist. The experiements I described above have both been done. They prove the moon is NOT hollow.\n\nFollow the link below for more information.\n\n\n>>>>And while you are at it, the moon rotates on\n>>>>> its axis, doesn't it?\n\nYes, and if you search Yahoo answers you will see that this question come sup regularly and is answered correctly every time.. eventually.\n\n>>>>>> Were you taught that at school? \n\nYes. As was everyone I know. Many failed to understand it or remember it of course, but that isn't the same thing.
363660
There are many ways of disproving Relativity.  All you'd need to do is test one of General Relativity's many predictions and find a result that was contrary to what the theory predicts.  For instance, the next solar eclipse, you could look at the stars near the sun and see whether or not their light had been bent by the presence of the sun's mass.  Or, you could show that GPS systems do not work, since the GPS satelites rely on general relativistic equations to keep them synchronized.  Or, you could fly an atomic clock around the world and show that time does not move more slowly for objects in fast motion than it does for a clock on the ground.  The problem with disproving General Relativity is that the theory has been tested millions of times over the last century, and no one has found it to be wrong yet.  Not once.\n\nWhat you might be able to do, though, is find a theory that is more fundamental than relativity for explaining the happenings of the universe.  There are questions about the universe that General Relativity has no answers for, just as there are questions that Quantum Mechanics cannot answer.  If you discovered a unified theory that could explain general reletivity, quantum mechanics, string theory, and all the gaps inbetween, then that would replace relativity as the fundamental theory of the universe.  However, any theory that you came up with would still have to be consistent with the experimental results from general relativity, just like general relativity is consistant with the Newton's Laws that it replaced.
277533
I believe in the Bible.\nThe Bible says that the world was created in six literal 24 hour days, is around 6000 years old, that man and dinosaurs lived together (being created in the same week), and that there was a flood that totally covered the entire planet, killing off the vast majority of human, plant and animal life on the planet.\nThe amount of scintific evidence that supports this theory is simply staggering, but rarely given a chance to be heard or seen due to the wide-spread acceptance of the evolution theory.\n\nDid you know that the earth's rotation is slowing down? So if you back up in time a few million years, you have to speed the earth's rotation up proportionatly - you can't even go back a few million before the earths rotation becomes so fast that life on this planet is not possible anymore. - Much less 4.6 billion years.\n\nThe orbit of the moon is growing a little bit farther away from the earth every year, so if you back that one up a few million years, the moon would have been so close to the earth that the tide would have come so high it would wipe out all life on the  planet twice a day. - 4.6 billion years ago, it would have to have been touching the earth,  not oribiting the earth.\n\nI could go on for many pages like this, but follow the link below to find out more about that the Bible says about creation, and what scientific examination of these claims have shown.
320406
There are many things that support the theory of evolution.  Mainly, the fossil record and the fact that you are here, though if natural selection holds true, you will not be working in any fied of science any time soon. \nThe tide example that you state does not disprove evolution because it's false; the amount of water in the world has not change as you suggest.  There is no reason to believe that any change in tides would work increasingly to cover the earth with water.  There are fluctuations in the level of the seas that follow geological and thermal events over the course of centuries and millenia, like the ice ages. In second place, evolution is not about the age of the earth, it's about natural adaptation to the environment. Examples to prove it can be found anywhere in nature.  Sea iguanas in Galapagos are one of the best-known examples of adaptive development.   If there was no evolution, these iguanas would be terrestrial like all of the other species of iguana in the world.  But they're not, they have evolved an adaptation to marine environments.  Think of that as a microcosm of what happens in the rest of nature.\nWhy do we have a residual tailbone?  Why do whales have residual fingers?  We don't have tails and we don't need them, but the tailbone is there...  If someone meant for us to have a tail, they would have given us a tail or none altogether.  The fact that we have a bone structure that serves no apparent purpose but to cause pain when you fall on your but and break it proves that there is an ongoing process that we are a part of.\nEvolution does not exclude creation, it just makes creation dynamic and alive at a much broader scale.  That creation cannot be a process driven by biology instead of a stagnant  pile of events is not written anywhere in any holy book.
104019
Oh good grief,  no, of course not. \n\nOf all the crazy consipracy theories out there this one is the silliest. The so-called "evidence" is incredibly, transparently wrong.\n\nAnd no one ever can answer the question that, if the landings were fake, why didn't the Soviets call up out? They have the radar capable of detecting space craft in and leaving Earth orbit, and the equipment to detect the laser ranging devices left on the moon. \n\nSo, why would they cooperate in a hoax that made them look bad. Makes no sense.
1023108
The fossil history is false. The scientists don't know what they are talking about. Radiometric dating is flawed. Everything is a lie except the Bible. I am trying out the other side of this argument. It's pretty weak I must say.
430814
I have a question for you. Have you EVER seriously looked at the evidence for either side? I doubt it, because there is evidence to support creationism. Plenty of it, you just have to look for it because it's not in the mainstream sciences. And there is quite a bit of evidence against evolution as well. Two good websites to look at are www.talkorigins.com and www.trueorigin.org. I think that's the website at least.
679781
I suggest you read the following link. It examines a lot of the conspiracy theory arguments and shows why the arguments doesn't hold water.
557287
If a theory can be proven, then it becomes a proven fact.  I suspect you'll find a lot of denial, even if someone could prove theories like this.
342516
I'm an atheist.  I'll be the first person to admit that I could be wrong.  Science is constantly changing as we learn more about our reality.  That may be why scientists are reluctant to state more than "I believe, it is possible, I claim that", etc.\n\nFor what it's worth... you shouldn't be convinced of your hubbie's arguments without proof (or at least a solid rational/logical framework).  That's what is so great about science!  You can prove every aspect.  If you find evidence that contradicts a theory, you are more than welcome to come up with a new theory that explains all the evidence!!\n\nFor what it's worth, young earth creationism is not science and does not explain all the evidence.
659757
Plenty of evidence! \n\nHere's a good place to "start" :
813264
I hear rumors of something called Earth 2.0, subtitled "The New Heaven and the New Earth."\n\nThen again, those rumors have been going around for about two thousand years so I wouldn't invest any money in it if I were you.
194826
How the heck do they know that? Whew that's one big scale. Do they hook up one of those hang in scales and attach it to mars? See you have a new pic. Nice. What if the middle of the planet was hollow after all? How do they know it isn't. I think someone just said it isn't cause that would make sense. \n\nBut I think its empty in the middle, and if we spring a leek from oil drilling we'll lose all our water, but then we'd be able to see everything in the ocean which would be cool. But I'm sure we'd have some left, cause the ocean is pretty deep in many areas right? So then we could have more land for farming to. Wouldn't that be good farm land? I'm not sure but we could probably drill lots of oil out of the Gulf of Mexico. Then all our gas prices could go back under $2 dollars maybe. That would be nice. Then... wait, what am I talking about?  hmmmm so my answer is YES!!! wait is that an option? oh man.............
320636
technichally speaking, if the earth were hollow, we wouldn't have gravity. If the earth is hollow, then where do we get volcanoes from? Figure it out.
1122825
nope you cant prove it either way.\n\ni was watching a show on evolution yesterday though and i had an interesting thought.\n\nyou remember hearing that if earths history was an encylopedia that the history of man would only be on like that last half of the last paragraph of the last book?\n\nwell then why didnt intelligent life evolve during that whole time? \n\njust a thought.
1047977
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? The way you pose the question is not sincere -- you've already interspersed conjecture. There ARE 4 corners to the earth when you look at the REAL earth from space. They are not sharp 90% angles, but nevertheless, the earth is not perfectly spherical. Check out DrDino.com and watch 28 hours of creation facts. There are far more holes in any other explanation for earth's beginning, just check them out. There were no clouds prior to the flood, it was a canopy of water. Similar, but not the same, Saturn has an ice halo around it. Earth had a complete canopy above it which regulated it temperature perfectly. Much thicker and integral than the ozone layer today. Upon God's judgment, God caused this canopy to colapse, forever altering the tropical paradise type atmosphere which allowed all manner of life to flourish, even at the poles. Animals with fresh produce still undigested have been found at the poles, frozen. Why? So God could be glorified thousands of years later when man would examine such evidence. Chances are God used a huge deep-space frozen comet or asteroid to knock the earth slightly out of a true orbit around the sun, the collision resulting in the collapse of the canopy AND cause the earth to tilt. If it were frozen nitrogen, it would quickly freeze even the largest of animals in the area the debris hit the earth. Keep in mind, God gives answers to the humble and the contrite in spirit, not to the proud.