Dennis1209 Posted March 16, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 17 Topic Count: 344 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,393 Content Per Day: 2.70 Reputation: 5,321 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/27/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 16, 2017 12 minutes ago, No124get1952 said: Since Carbon-14 dating has been discredited for being inaccurate for years, it is very difficult to accept any relic as coming from any farther back than what Genesis says as the beginning of history. What the Nephilim and such looked like is really NOT central to the story of the Gospel, so although interesting to consider, I generally ignore those questions as non-essential to my faith. Personally speaking and not to argue, the Bible tells a story of the beginning to the end and what's in between. Every word, jot and tittle is there for a purpose and reason. I believe what the Nephilim were like is central to the story of satan vs. God. As satan tried to contaminate the bloodline of Christ with the introduction of non humans, and kill every Hebrew on the planet, as just a couple of examples. Certainly it is not a Salvation issue, but it is part of the history and story of the coming Messiah and the obstacles and stumbling blocks satan put in the path of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No124get1952 Posted March 16, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 159 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 184 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/17/1952 Share Posted March 16, 2017 In doing a bit more research on Carbon 14 dating, it IS accurate, IF...if you have a "wood" sample of known age as a reference. THEN you have to calibrate your dating process. Since we do not have a lot of "wooden" artifacts of known age available as references, Carbon-14 dating only goes back a maximum of 7000 years....or in other words, about the same time frame as the Biblical record...that is very interesting. Dating of rocks and geologic formations is a bit more accurate, but still, every radiometric means of dating, including magnetic resonance, is based upon assumptions and reasoned logic that have yet, to be confirmed through actual experimental data. So the dating of fossils, geologic formations, rocks and all other things are still based upon assumptions of what the original values of certain elements or isotopes WERE in the distant past. Unfortunately for them, even a one decimal point inaccuracy can cause a timeline in geologic history to move from billions of years of history down to a few thousand years.....so, the Bible still shows up as highly reputable in the scientific arena. All of the other theories are just that...very intricately defined theories with complex models and assumptions hung on them to dress them up as science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewels7 Posted March 16, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 713 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 351 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/10/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 16, 2017 Carbon 14 isn't the only method of dating. Nor is it today easily dismissed as a method. It would be very odd to argue the earth is not more than 10,000 years of age given all the samples and artifacts we have of strata and cultures spanning tens of thousands of years. Also, what would it say if true concerning the fossilized remains of early humans fossils with regard to the story of the garden of Eden? Illustrative Mathematics:N-Q, S-ID Accuracy of Carbon 14 Dating I Carbon Dating Gets a Reset Climate records from a Japanese lake are providing a more accurate timeline for dating objects as far back as 50,000 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4LdKHVCzRDj2 Posted March 16, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 17 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,453 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 1,453 Days Won: 6 Joined: 11/02/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/23/1991 Share Posted March 16, 2017 14 hours ago, worthy said: How do you know if back in the Bible days a day was 24 hours? Well, I am not sure if every time "day" is mentioned in the Bible it means "Earth days", especially when said by God. But we know that: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" - Genesis 1:14 According to this, while people certainly did not count time as precisely as we do today I believe a day in that time was considered to be the time Sun's light was hitting the Earth at that location; then night came, all dark; then when Sun appeared again: That was the start of a new day. Days could then be counted like that, as it is also mentioned multiple times in the Bible about "days and nights". 1 day and 1 night can be considered "24 hours" today, of course in some locations days can be longer than night (especially at the poles) then some discrepancies are inevitable. But people wasn't living in the poles in Bible locations, then I believe the length of a day/night was not so far to ours today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted March 16, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,676 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,496 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted March 16, 2017 4 hours ago, Dennis1209 said: I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it makes me wonder about some of these skulls they find and try to make a family tree out of. If they're not extinct animals which is probable, could what they are finding be men of old, men of renown. In other words hybrids like the Nephilim? It's my understanding these offspring of the fallen angels mating with women (Gen 6:) varied in appearance, statue and size before and after the antediluvian period. As far as dating methods, everyone should know carbon 14 dating is a pipe dream and has been scientifically shown how water and the environment make it very unreliable. A little study on how things layer in the earth from a deluge discredits the earth layer fossil record also. If only science would approach "science" from a Biblical perspective, think of how much more our knowledge and advancement would be? While I'm thinking about it, how often do you hear about any testing and reporting of a DNA analysis? Skull, bone and teeth are often good candidates for extracting viable DNA from extended periods of time. No doubt when they can't reconcile the results to fit their evolution theory, the results are inconclusive or bad samples. you will find every single "missing link" that has been found, has been discredited as either being fully human or fully ape, or even something else. Take Nebraska man for instance-they created Nebraska man and his entire family, off of a single tooth. Now, if that isnt obvious enough to you as bad science, several years later they found the rest of the skeleton-it wasnt human or ape, it was a species of extinct PIG. And then, to add icing to the cake, the pig was later found not to be extinct, but alive and well living in the congo. Evolution is not science-its make believe. And its sad so many people buy into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted March 16, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,676 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,496 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted March 16, 2017 3 hours ago, 4LdKHVCzRDj2 said: Well, I am not sure if every time "day" is mentioned in the Bible it means "Earth days", especially when said by God. But we know that: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" - Genesis 1:14 According to this, while people certainly did not count time as precisely as we do today I believe a day in that time was considered to be the time Sun's light was hitting the Earth at that location; then night came, all dark; then when Sun appeared again: That was the start of a new day. Days could then be counted like that, as it is also mentioned multiple times in the Bible about "days and nights". 1 day and 1 night can be considered "24 hours" today, of course in some locations days can be longer than night (especially at the poles) then some discrepancies are inevitable. But people wasn't living in the poles in Bible locations, then I believe the length of a day/night was not so far to ours today. it was doubtful anyone lived on the poles in Bible times for the same reasons no one lives there today-and certainly, not the Hebrew writers. the "day and night" (or evening and morning) as found in genesis 1:14 very much indicated a literal, 24 hour day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave from oz Posted March 16, 2017 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 8 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/02/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/04/1972 Share Posted March 16, 2017 There's a few too many zeros on the age I reckon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewels7 Posted March 16, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 713 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 351 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/10/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 16, 2017 That was Darwin's dilemma. The Cambrian explosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted March 16, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,676 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,496 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted March 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Jewels7 said: That was Darwin's dilemma. The Cambrian explosion. one of them. The other, was trying to explain macro evolution, without ever finding any actual evidence of it.....and the "cambrian explosian" is yet, another example of bad science, yet another extremely weak hypothesis, based more on assumptions and bias then actual science. https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-timeline/cambrian-explosion-was-the-culmination-of-cascading-causes-evolutionists-claim/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted March 17, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 14/03/2017 at 0:45 AM, MorningGlory said: The title of this article is a little misleading. It states a fossil HUMAN cranium in the headline but, if you read the article, you find that it was a NEANDERTHAL cranium that was found. Neanderthals were not of our species so they were not, therefore, human. It's interesting to read though because I, personally, didn't know that Neanderthals made and used tools. http://mashable.com/2017/03/13/human-fossil-evolution-portugal/#fLRfjSDzvEqt Apes and even a few lower animals use tools. Neanderthals were human beings. The problem is that secular scientists have taken bits and pieces of human beings deformed by bone diseases and turned that into a whole secular ideology of prehuman anthropoids when there were no such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts