Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | svbeattie38 | 141060 | ||
This is just a thought, but I was wondering if some of the human remains that scientists are discovering and using to try to prove evolution, are people who died in during the Flood. It's something that I've been thinking about lately, could it be true? | ||||||
2 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 141137 | ||
Interestingly the only human remains that can be proven unquestionably to be human and have accurate dating is the one called Ice Man. He was discovered in a mountain pass in Europe and is thought to be about only 5000 - 5500 years old. Well within what is the normally accepted time frame of the Creation account. Many of the other discoveries have been found to be fraud or to have had their discovery area so contaminated that accurate dating is not possible. Interestingly while the above info is common knowledge in the scientific community our schools are still teaching from text books that lists various human and non human remains that have been proven fraudulent or incorrectly dated. Most scientists will admit if pressed that there is a major flaw in the atomic theory and this flaw renders most carbon dating very inaccurate. Outside factors have been proven to effect the deterioration of the atom’s life. Therefore a dating with out a valid sampling of the surrounding environment can throw the carbon dating off enough to render it useless. EdB |
||||||
3 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 141147 | ||
Greetings EdB! There is another major problem with all of the radioactive dating methods. They all assume that the material started out 100 percent pure. So, element A degrades into element B over such and such amount of time. The assumption is that the material was all A to begin with. However, what if God created the material with some A and some B in it? :-) If so, then the dating is inaccurate because of faulty assumptions! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 141164 | ||
Tim The whole thing with dating is very messed up. I still remember the scientist designing the Lunar Lander with big round feet to support it in the millions of years of dust that had accumulated on the Moon. However when they actually landed they found a very thin layer. When the actual depth of the dust was ran through their formulas it revealed that was only about 6000 years of dust. All of this is a verifiable fact yet it seems to get conveniently forgotten or shoved into the shadows by the old earth people. I don’t know if it was a authenticate picture or not (hard to tell now days) but I once saw a picture of iron tea kettle found in a bed of coal dug from a bog (swamp) near an old 17th century American settlement. Whether the picture was factual or not I don’t know, but I do know it has been discovered that coal can form many times faster than first thought. EdB |
||||||
5 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141169 | ||
Radioactive dating is highly accurate. I am a scientist and a fundamentalist Christian who has worked as a missionary. I have also worked in the radioactive dating field, and know no scientists that admit any major flaws. Scientists do argue over purity and original concentrations, but have methods to answer the problems. We might just as well argue that all stars are no farther away than 6,000 lightyears away. Even if we prove the radioactive problem, we still suffer the star problem. Some reputable Christians, instead argue that God created an earth and starry heavens about 6,000 years ago with an apparent ancient history of about 15 billion years. I just accept the facts of the Bible and the facts of science. I am willing to argue about interpretations of the Bible and interpretations of science, but I base it on solid arguments. Show me why carbon dating, tree ring dating, ice core dating, seafloor dating, and lakebed dating, along with stalactite dating are all wrong with strong scientific facts and arguments. As it is, when I attempt to witness to scientists, we have to get past them rejecting the message because they lump me with the Creation research people. Scientists find their work very unscientific. The bones are there, they are ancient by all our tests. Lets deal with them honestly. Greentwiga |
||||||
6 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 141175 | ||
Hi Greentwiga, I've been perusing some material recently that has some information on these issues. Considering a water canopy above the atmosphere as described in Genesis, the amount of cosmic radiation absorbed by creatures before the flood would be greatly reduced. When measured and evaluated by today's rates of absorption, it would falsly indicate extreme age. According to many published and accepted experiments, the speed of light is slowing down. A faster lightspeed in antiquity indicates a smaller, newer, universe. The fact is, all of these things you have named as methods of dating assume that all things continue as they were since creation. The fact is, we really don't know what conditions were like before the flood. One guess is that the atmospheric pressure may have been double. That is aproximately what is required for pterdactyls to fly. Just this one change would alter the way all life lives and grows. Since oxygen is a primary catalyst in this world, virtually all reactions would happen faster, plants would grow faster, and we really don't know what all the differences are. The truth of the matter is that accepting or rejecting Christ is a spiritual matter. If I wish to reject Jesus, I will come up with any number of excuses. Chuck Missler gives an excellent presentation regarding the speed of light and the age of the universe, in collaboration with some of the primary research scientists in the field. His website is www.khouse.org. The bones are there. Man says he knows how old they are, but the Bible says differently. I believe the Bible. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
7 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141179 | ||
Thanks. This is a more honest attempt to answer the questions I raised. It is a different Biblical theory than the theory of God creating an earth with apparant age, but it also attempts to answer the questions. Both are better than just throwing out scientific facts. Thanks again. Greentwiga |
||||||
8 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 141185 | ||
Hi Greentwiga, Once upon a time I thought God must have created the earth with apparent age. Someone pointed out to me that God is not a deceiver, and so I began to look for something different. I believe the Bible will always agree with accurate science. I understand that the current cutting edge of the science of origins is "intelligent design", as scientist are beginning to recognize that this couldn't have just "happened". I hope that opens their eyes. The answers are out there! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
9 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 141230 | ||
I myself believe accurate science will always agree with the Bible. "Science does not contradict the Bible. Oh, hundreds of times, the Bible has contradicted science – and science has in due turn been found to be wrong.” (Truths That Transform - D. James Kennedy) There is no contradiction between true science and what the Bible actually says, as opposed to what people think it says. |
||||||