G
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I don’t see how that proves anything. It also isn’t a very trustworthy source and even it shows skepticism.
S
SRWalker
Guest
What does this prove? It solely proves that atleast that section of the Bible is plausible, not the God exists. This is like saying because they found what appears to be the remenants of the Trojan horse, all of Greek mythology is true. Not trying to be mean at all, dont get me wrong it would be cool if it was real. Finally just a note, it would be historical evidence, not scientific.
S
sentiao
Guest
Hi, I’m new. And… sorry but you might not like what I’m going to say.
According to the article the only 2 certainties are: the ark (or just ‘ship’) & the carbon dating pointing to biblical times. The part about the 10 commandments is just speculation.
Ok, from that point I would like to ask you a question.
The proof that is needed to safely state that this ark is from biblical times needs to be acknowledged by the audience before the audience can accept it as the truth. The method used to gain this proof was, in fact, carbon dating. Therefore, by admiting to accept carbon dating as a valid method for putting a date on things, you believe carbon dating to be (roughly) correct.
So far so good, right?
Well, by this same method proof has been gathered to show that planet Earth is about 4 to 6 billion years old (I’m sorry, I don’t know the exact number). This is, ofcourse, contrary to biblical writings.
In other words: either you believe what the bible says, or you accept carbon dating (proving the earth to be older than what is written in the Bible). Apart from that nothing else but the carbon date points towards the Bible or anything related.
In other words (again), you’ve just accepted one of the fundamental methods (and therefore their results) used in disproving the writings of the Bible.
This gives you a choice. Does this scare you?
According to the article the only 2 certainties are: the ark (or just ‘ship’) & the carbon dating pointing to biblical times. The part about the 10 commandments is just speculation.
Ok, from that point I would like to ask you a question.
The proof that is needed to safely state that this ark is from biblical times needs to be acknowledged by the audience before the audience can accept it as the truth. The method used to gain this proof was, in fact, carbon dating. Therefore, by admiting to accept carbon dating as a valid method for putting a date on things, you believe carbon dating to be (roughly) correct.
So far so good, right?
Well, by this same method proof has been gathered to show that planet Earth is about 4 to 6 billion years old (I’m sorry, I don’t know the exact number). This is, ofcourse, contrary to biblical writings.
In other words: either you believe what the bible says, or you accept carbon dating (proving the earth to be older than what is written in the Bible). Apart from that nothing else but the carbon date points towards the Bible or anything related.
In other words (again), you’ve just accepted one of the fundamental methods (and therefore their results) used in disproving the writings of the Bible.
This gives you a choice. Does this scare you?
S
SRWalker
Guest
Well put senatio, it brings back the point of using science only when it benifits the church and when it contradicts it, call it heresy. You cant have your cake and eat it to my good man.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I take it you’re not familiar with the “writings of the Bible”, since you seem to think carbon dating proves or disproves anything, and you think the Ark of the Covenent is a ship.Hi, I’m new. And… sorry but you might not like what I’m going to say.
According to the article the only 2 certainties are: the ark (or just ‘ship’) & the carbon dating pointing to biblical times. The part about the 10 commandments is just speculation.
Ok, from that point I would like to ask you a question.
The proof that is needed to safely state that this ark is from biblical times needs to be acknowledged by the audience before the audience can accept it as the truth. The method used to gain this proof was, in fact, carbon dating. Therefore, by admiting to accept carbon dating as a valid method for putting a date on things, you believe carbon dating to be (roughly) correct.
So far so good, right?
Well, by this same method proof has been gathered to show that planet Earth is about 4 to 6 billion years old (I’m sorry, I don’t know the exact number). This is, ofcourse, contrary to biblical writings.
In other words: either you believe what the bible says, or you accept carbon dating (proving the earth to be older than what is written in the Bible). Apart from that nothing else but the carbon date points towards the Bible or anything related.
In other words (again), you’ve just accepted one of the fundamental methods (and therefore their results) used in disproving the writings of the Bible.
This gives you a choice. Does this scare you?
S
sentiao
Guest
Well, I know little of both the Bible and carbon dating.
I’m just pointing out the dilemma, whichever side you pick.
I’m just pointing out the dilemma, whichever side you pick.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Awesome, so instead of having a working knowledge of one and knowing little of the other, which I suggested would make for a bad argument, you know little of both. That’s awesome. :banghead:Well, I know little of both the Bible and carbon dating.
I’m just pointing out the dilemma, whichever side you pick.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.